Arizona
Arizona Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Arizona law permits home and business owners to install surveillance cameras on their own property and in public-facing areas. Cameras may not record spaces where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as bathrooms. For audio, Arizona follows one-party consent under A.R.S. 13-3005.
Last verified: March 2026. This page reflects current Arizona Revised Statutes Title 13, Chapter 30 and related provisions.
Table of Contents
- Overview of Arizona Surveillance Camera Laws
- Home Security Camera Laws in Arizona
- Audio Recording and One-Party Consent (ARS 13-3005)
- Hidden Cameras and Voyeurism (ARS 13-3019)
- Workplace Surveillance Camera Laws
- Nanny Cams and In-Home Monitoring
- Ring Doorbells and Outdoor Cameras
- Neighbor Disputes Over Security Cameras
- Drone Surveillance Laws (ARS 13-3729)
- Penalties for Violating Arizona Surveillance Laws
- HOA Rules and Local Regulations
- Frequently Asked Questions
- More Arizona Laws
Overview of Arizona Surveillance Camera Laws
Arizona does not have a single statute that governs all aspects of surveillance cameras. Instead, multiple laws work together to regulate when and where cameras can be used, whether audio can be recorded, and what penalties apply for illegal surveillance.
The primary statutes that control surveillance camera use in Arizona include ARS 13-3019 (surreptitious recording), ARS 13-3005 (wiretapping and audio interception), ARS 13-1424 (voyeurism), and ARS 13-3729 (drone surveillance).
The general rule in Arizona is straightforward: you can record video in public spaces and on your own property, but you cannot record people in locations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Audio recording follows a one-party consent rule, meaning at least one person in the conversation must agree to the recording.
Understanding these laws is critical for homeowners installing security systems, employers monitoring workplaces, and anyone who wants to avoid criminal liability while protecting their property.
Home Security Camera Laws in Arizona
Arizona homeowners have broad rights to install security cameras on their own property. You can legally place cameras on the exterior of your home, in your driveway, in your garage, and in common areas inside your home such as living rooms, kitchens, and hallways.
Where You Can Place Cameras
There are no permits required for residential security camera installation in most Arizona jurisdictions. You can mount cameras on your home's exterior walls, eaves, fences, and other structures you own. Cameras can capture your front yard, backyard, driveway, and any portion of the public street or sidewalk visible from your property.
Recording video of public areas such as sidewalks, streets, and parks is legal because there is no expectation of privacy in these spaces. If something is visible to the naked eye from your property, you can generally record it with a camera.
Where Cameras Are Prohibited
Under ARS 13-3019, it is illegal to place cameras in any location where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes bathrooms, bedrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms.
Even in your own home, you cannot install a hidden camera in a guest bathroom or a bedroom used by a visitor without their knowledge. The law protects people from being secretly recorded while they are undressing, using the bathroom, or engaged in intimate activity.
Security Camera Exemption
ARS 13-3019 provides a specific exemption for security purposes. If you post clear notice that video surveillance is being used in an area where someone might expect privacy, the recording is permitted. This exemption is important for businesses and property owners who need to monitor sensitive areas for legitimate security reasons.
The notice must be clearly posted where the person would see it before entering the monitored area.
Audio Recording and One-Party Consent
Arizona is a one-party consent state for audio recording under ARS 13-3005. This means that at least one person involved in a conversation must consent to the recording for it to be legal.
What One-Party Consent Means
If you are part of a conversation, you can legally record it without telling the other person. This applies to both in-person conversations and phone calls. You do not need to inform the other party that you are recording.
However, you cannot record a conversation between two other people if you are not a participant and no one in the conversation has given you consent. Doing so is a Class 5 felony under Arizona law.
How This Affects Security Cameras
Many modern security cameras, including Ring doorbells and other smart home devices, record both video and audio. Under Arizona law, audio recording is legal as long as at least one party to the conversation consents.
If your security camera records a conversation you are participating in at your front door, that recording is legal. However, if your camera picks up a private conversation between two neighbors on the sidewalk that you are not part of, the audio portion of that recording could create legal issues.
As a practical matter, courts have generally not pursued cases where security cameras incidentally capture audio in public or semi-public areas. The law is primarily aimed at intentional, targeted interception of private communications.
Penalties for Illegal Audio Recording
Violating ARS 13-3005 is a Class 5 felony. For first-time offenders, this carries a presumptive sentence of 1.5 years in prison under ARS 13-702, with a range from 0.5 years (mitigated) to 2.5 years (aggravated).
Illegally installing a pen register or trap and trace device on another person's communication lines is a Class 6 felony.
Hidden Cameras and Voyeurism
Arizona has two primary statutes that criminalize hidden camera use for voyeuristic or invasive purposes: ARS 13-3019 (surreptitious recording) and ARS 13-1424 (voyeurism).
ARS 13-3019: Surreptitious Recording
This statute makes it illegal to knowingly photograph, videotape, film, digitally record, or secretly view another person without their consent in two situations:
Private locations: Recording someone in a restroom, bathroom, locker room, bedroom, or other location where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy while they are undressing, nude, using the toilet, or engaged in sexual activity.
Intimate images: Recording in a manner that captures or allows viewing of a person's genitalia, buttocks, or female breast, whether clothed or unclothed, when those areas are not otherwise visible to the public. This includes "upskirting" and similar invasive tactics.
It is also illegal to disclose, display, distribute, or publish a recording that was made in violation of subsection A, without the consent of the person depicted. That limit matters: subsection B reaches only images that were secretly obtained in the first place. It does not reach the paradigm "revenge porn" case, in which an image was created consensually and later shared to harm the person depicted.
Arizona prosecutes that conduct under a different statute, ARS 13-1425, which makes it unlawful to intentionally disclose an identifiable image of a person who is nude or engaged in sexual activity, when that person had a reasonable expectation of privacy and the disclosure is intended to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce. The statute expressly provides that "evidence that a person has sent an image to another person using an electronic device does not, on its own, remove the person's reasonable expectation of privacy for that image." A violation is a class 5 felony, or a class 4 felony if the image is disclosed by electronic means.
ARS 13-1424: Voyeurism
The voyeurism statute specifically targets the act of knowingly invading another person's privacy without their knowledge for the purpose of sexual stimulation. A violation is a Class 5 felony. If the person depicted in a distributed recording is recognizable, the charge elevates to a Class 4 felony.
Exemptions Under ARS 13-3019
The law provides several important exemptions:
- Security cameras with posted notice: Recording for security purposes is allowed if clear notice is posted in areas where a person might expect privacy.
- Correctional facilities: Officials may record in jails and prisons for security or misconduct investigations.
- Law enforcement: Officers may record pursuant to lawful investigations.
- Child monitoring devices: The use of baby monitors and similar devices as defined in ARS 13-3001 is permitted.
Workplace Surveillance Camera Laws
Arizona does not have a specific statute regulating workplace surveillance cameras. Instead, employers must follow the general privacy principles established in ARS 13-3019 and ARS 13-3005.
Employer Rights
Employers in Arizona can install surveillance cameras in common work areas, lobbies, hallways, parking lots, warehouses, and retail floors. Cameras in these areas serve legitimate business purposes such as preventing theft, monitoring productivity, and ensuring workplace safety.
Arizona courts have generally upheld an employer's right to monitor workplace activities in areas where employees do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Employee Privacy Protections
Employers cannot place cameras in restrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, break rooms where employees change clothes, or any other area where workers have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Doing so would violate ARS 13-3019 and could result in felony charges.
Audio Recording in the Workplace
Because Arizona is a one-party consent state, an employer who is a party to a workplace conversation can record it. However, placing hidden audio recording devices to capture conversations between employees without any party's consent would violate ARS 13-3005.
Best Practices for Employers
While not legally required in all cases, Arizona employers should consider posting notices informing employees that video surveillance is in use. Written policies in employee handbooks that disclose monitoring practices can help avoid disputes and potential liability.
Nanny Cams and In-Home Monitoring
Arizona law allows parents to install video cameras inside their own home to monitor babysitters, nannies, and other caregivers. This is true even if the camera is hidden and the caregiver does not know about it.
Hidden Nanny Cams Are Legal in Common Areas
You can place hidden video cameras in living rooms, kitchens, playrooms, and other common areas of your home without telling your nanny or babysitter. Since these are areas of your own home where you control access, courts recognize your right to monitor what happens there.
Where You Cannot Place Nanny Cams
Even in your own home, you cannot place cameras in bathrooms or bedrooms where a caregiver might change clothes or use the facilities. ARS 13-3019 protects the caregiver's reasonable expectation of privacy in these spaces.
You also cannot install cameras in a caregiver's own home, car, or any other location outside your property. Doing so would be illegal surveillance.
Audio Recording Rules for Nanny Cams
Arizona's wiretapping chapter contains an exemption written for exactly this situation. ARS 13-3012(14) exempts from the entire chapter "the interception of oral communications by means of a child monitoring device," and ARS 13-3001(2) defines that as "a device that is capable of transmitting an audio or audiovisual signal and that is installed or used in a residence for child supervision or safety monitoring by any parent, guardian or other responsible person in the person's own residence."
An audio-enabled nanny cam that a parent or guardian installs in their own home to supervise a child fits that definition. Its audio is exempt even when you are not home and even when nobody in the room has consented, so the common warning that a nanny cam might be felony wiretapping does not describe the ordinary case.
ARS 13-3012(9) narrows the risk further. It exempts interception made with the consent of a party to the communication or of "a person who is present during the communication," so consent by someone simply present is enough. Whether every speaker consented is not the operative test.
The exemption is tied to its purpose and its place. A device installed for child supervision or safety monitoring in your own residence is covered; a recorder placed to capture a caregiver's private conversations for reasons unrelated to child supervision, or any device placed outside your own home, is not. Cameras and microphones still may not go in a bathroom or a bedroom the caregiver uses, and telling your caregiver that audio and video recording takes place in your home remains the cleanest practice.
Penalties for Illegal Nanny Cam Use
Placing a camera in a bathroom or bedroom used by a caregiver violates ARS 13-3019 and is a Class 5 felony. Audio picked up by a child monitoring device in your own home is exempt under ARS 13-3012(14), so an ordinary nanny cam does not carry wiretapping exposure. Audio recording that falls outside that exemption, such as a device planted to intercept a caregiver's private conversations for reasons unrelated to child supervision, can still violate ARS 13-3005, a Class 5 felony carrying a presumptive sentence of 1.5 years in prison and fines up to $150,000.
Ring Doorbells and Outdoor Cameras
Ring doorbells, Nest cameras, Arlo systems, and similar outdoor smart cameras are legal in Arizona. These devices typically record video and audio of your front porch, entryway, driveway, and adjacent public areas.
Why Doorbell Cameras Are Legal
People do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy on a public sidewalk, in a public street, or on your front porch. Since doorbell cameras record areas that are already visible to anyone passing by, the recordings are legal under Arizona law.
Audio Recording Considerations
Most Ring and similar devices record audio along with video. Under Arizona's one-party consent law, audio recording is legal when you are a party to the conversation. When a delivery person or visitor speaks to you through the doorbell, you are a party to that conversation and can legally record it.
Audio captured incidentally from public spaces, such as people talking as they walk past your home, generally does not raise legal issues because conversations in public carry a diminished expectation of privacy.
Pointing Cameras at Neighboring Properties
You can aim your doorbell or outdoor camera at your own property and public areas. However, intentionally directing a camera to peer into a neighbor's windows, backyard, or other private area may violate ARS 13-3019 if it captures images of people in private settings.
The general legal test is whether the camera captures only what would be visible to the naked eye from your property. A standard-angle doorbell camera is almost always fine. A high-zoom or telescopic camera aimed specifically at a neighbor's bedroom window would not be.
Neighbor Disputes Over Security Cameras
Security camera placement between neighbors is one of the most common sources of residential disputes in Arizona. While cameras are generally legal, certain situations can cross legal lines.
When Your Neighbor's Camera Is Legal
Your neighbor can install cameras that happen to capture part of your front yard, driveway, or other areas visible from their property. If your neighbor can see something with their own eyes from their property, they can generally record it.
A standard security camera mounted on a neighbor's eave that captures a wide field of view including part of your yard is legal, provided it serves a legitimate security purpose.
When Your Neighbor's Camera May Be Illegal
If a neighbor installs a camera specifically aimed at your bedroom window, bathroom window, or other private area of your home, that could violate ARS 13-3019. The key factors are whether the camera is targeting an area where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy and whether the purpose appears to be surveillance of your private activities rather than legitimate security.
A telescopic or high-zoom camera trained solely on your windows, rather than a wide-angle security camera that incidentally captures part of your property, is more likely to be found illegal.
Steps to Resolve Camera Disputes
If you believe a neighbor's camera invades your privacy, consider these steps:
- Talk to your neighbor. Many camera placement issues can be resolved through a direct conversation about adjusting the camera angle.
- Document the situation. Take photos of the camera placement and note what it appears to capture.
- Contact local police. If you believe the camera violates ARS 13-3019, file a report with your local police department.
- Consult an attorney. An Arizona privacy attorney can evaluate whether the camera placement violates state law and advise you on civil remedies.
- Install privacy barriers. Fences, hedges, and window treatments can block a camera's view of your private spaces.
Drone Surveillance Laws
Arizona regulates drone surveillance under ARS 13-3729, which addresses unlawful operation of unmanned aircraft.
Prohibited Drone Surveillance
ARS 13-3729 does not create a general prohibition on drone photography of people in private places. Its only photography-related prohibition, in subsection B, is narrowly limited to using a drone to intentionally photograph or loiter near a critical facility (as defined by the statute) in furtherance of a criminal offense. A drone that secretly photographs or records a person in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy may instead be prosecuted under ARS 13-3019, which applies to secretly viewing or recording a person "with or without a device."
It is also illegal to use a drone to intentionally photograph or loiter over or near a critical facility in furtherance of any criminal offense.
Drone Operations That Interfere With Emergency Services
Operating a drone in a manner that interferes with law enforcement, firefighter, or emergency services operations is a Class 1 misdemeanor. This includes flying drones near active crime scenes, wildfires, or accident response areas.
Penalties for Illegal Drone Surveillance
Penalties under ARS 13-3729 depend on which subsection is violated. Interfering with law enforcement, firefighter, or emergency operations (subsection A) is a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. Photographing or loitering near a critical facility in furtherance of a crime (subsection B) is a Class 6 felony, or a Class 5 felony for a second or subsequent violation. Additional charges under ARS 13-3019 for surreptitious recording may apply if the drone captures images of a person in a private place, which is a Class 5 felony (or a Class 4 felony if a recognizable image is distributed).
State Preemption
Arizona law preempts local regulation of drones. Under ARS 13-3729, cities, towns, and counties cannot enact their own ordinances, policies, or rules relating to the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft. All drone regulation in Arizona is handled at the state and federal level.
Federal Drone Rules
In addition to Arizona state law, drone operators must follow Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. Recreational drone operators must register their aircraft, fly below 400 feet, keep the drone within visual line of sight, and avoid restricted airspace including near airports. Commercial operators need a Remote Pilot Certificate under FAA Part 107.
Penalties for Violating Arizona Surveillance Laws
Arizona imposes serious criminal penalties for illegal surveillance. Here is a summary of the key offenses and their classifications under ARS 13-702:
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Presumptive Sentence (First Offense) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Surreptitious recording with a device | ARS 13-3019 | Class 5 Felony | 1.5 years |
| Surreptitious viewing without a device | ARS 13-3019 | Class 6 Felony | 1 year |
| Distributing recognizable surreptitious images | ARS 13-3019 | Class 4 Felony | 2.5 years |
| Illegal wiretapping or audio interception | ARS 13-3005 | Class 5 Felony | 1.5 years |
| Illegal pen register installation | ARS 13-3005 | Class 6 Felony | 1 year |
| Voyeurism | ARS 13-1424 | Class 5 Felony | 1.5 years |
| Distributing recognizable voyeurism images | ARS 13-1424 | Class 4 Felony | 2.5 years |
| Drone interference with emergency operations (Subsection A) | ARS 13-3729 | Class 1 Misdemeanor | Up to 6 months jail |
| Drone photography/loitering near critical facility (Subsection B) | ARS 13-3729 | Class 6 Felony | 1 year |
Sentencing Ranges for First-Time Felony Offenders (ARS 13-702)
- Class 4 Felony: 1 year (mitigated) to 2.5 years (presumptive) to 3.75 years (aggravated)
- Class 5 Felony: 0.5 years (mitigated) to 1.5 years (presumptive) to 2.5 years (aggravated)
- Class 6 Felony: 4 months (mitigated) to 1 year (presumptive) to 2 years (aggravated)
Repeat offenders face significantly longer sentences under ARS 13-703. A second or subsequent surreptitious viewing offense without a device is elevated from a Class 6 to a Class 5 felony.
In addition to criminal penalties, victims of illegal surveillance may pursue civil lawsuits for invasion of privacy, seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.
HOA Rules and Local Regulations
While Arizona state law governs criminal aspects of surveillance, homeowners' associations (HOAs) can impose additional restrictions on camera placement and appearance.
HOA Authority Over Cameras
Arizona HOAs can regulate the size, placement, and appearance of security cameras through their CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions). Some HOAs require cameras to be discreet, limit the number of visible cameras, or prohibit certain mounting locations.
However, if the HOA's governing documents do not specifically address security cameras, the HOA generally cannot prevent you from installing them, as long as you comply with state law.
No Permit Required in Most Cases
Most Arizona cities and towns do not require a permit for residential security camera installation. However, if camera installation involves electrical work or structural modifications, building permits may be required for that work.
State Preemption on Drones
As noted above, local governments in Arizona cannot pass their own drone ordinances. All drone regulation is handled at the state and federal level under ARS 13-3729.
Related Arizona Camera and Privacy Laws
- Arizona Recording Laws covers the consent rule that governs camera audio in Arizona.
- Arizona Security Camera Recording Rules explains the recording-law side of camera use.
- Arizona Biometric Privacy Laws addresses facial recognition and biometric data.
- Arizona Ring Doorbell Laws covers video doorbell rules in Arizona.
Common Camera Questions
These national guides answer the most common surveillance camera questions:
- HOA Security Camera Rules
- Neighbor Security Camera Laws
- Nanny Cam Laws
- Workplace Surveillance Camera Laws
- Landlord Security Camera Laws
More Arizona Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to have security cameras outside my house in Arizona?
Yes. Arizona homeowners can install security cameras on the exterior of their property to record their yard, driveway, and public areas like sidewalks and streets. No permit is required in most jurisdictions. The cameras become illegal only if they are intentionally aimed at areas where neighbors have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as through bedroom or bathroom windows (ARS 13-3019).
Can I use a hidden nanny cam in Arizona?
Yes, with limitations. You can install hidden video cameras in common areas of your home such as the living room and kitchen to monitor your babysitter or nanny. However, you cannot place cameras in bathrooms or bedrooms where the caregiver might undress. For audio, ARS 13-3012(14) exempts the interception of oral communications by a child monitoring device, which ARS 13-3001(2) defines as an audio or audiovisual device installed in a residence for child supervision or safety monitoring by a parent, guardian or other responsible person in that person's own residence. An audio-enabled nanny cam used that way in your own home is covered even when you are not there.
Can my neighbor legally point a security camera at my property in Arizona?
Generally, yes. If your neighbor's camera captures areas of your property that are visible from their property, such as your front yard or driveway, that is legal. However, if a camera is specifically aimed at your bedroom window or another area where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, it may violate ARS 13-3019. A wide-angle security camera that incidentally captures part of your yard is treated differently than a zoom lens targeted at your windows.
Does Arizona require one-party or two-party consent for audio recording?
Arizona is a one-party consent state under ARS 13-3005. This means only one person involved in a conversation needs to consent to the recording. If you are a participant in the conversation, you can record it without informing the other party. Recording a conversation between two other people without any participant's consent is a Class 5 felony.
What are the penalties for illegal surveillance in Arizona?
Penalties vary by offense. Surreptitious recording with a device (ARS 13-3019) is a Class 5 felony with a presumptive sentence of 1.5 years in prison. Distributing recognizable images from illegal surveillance is a Class 4 felony with a presumptive sentence of 2.5 years. Illegal wiretapping (ARS 13-3005) is a Class 5 felony. Illegal drone surveillance under ARS 13-3729 depends on the subsection violated: interfering with emergency operations is a Class 1 misdemeanor with up to 6 months in jail and a $2,500 fine, while photographing or loitering near a critical facility in furtherance of a crime is a Class 6 felony (Class 5 for a repeat violation).
Updates
Corrected the nanny cam section to apply Arizona's child monitoring device exemption (A.R.S. 13-3012(14)), which the page had omitted, and reattributed revenge porn to A.R.S. 13-1425 rather than A.R.S. 13-3019(B).
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected fabricated claims about Arizona's drone-surveillance statute (ARS 13-3729, which only covers critical-infrastructure photography, not general private-place recording) and fixed its penalty classification (felony for critical-facility photography, not a blanket misdemeanor); also corrected an overstated prison-term figure for ordinary hidden-camera voyeurism under ARS 13-3019/13-1424.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13 (Criminal Code), Chapter 30 (EAVESDROPPING AND COMMUNICATIONS)
§ 13-3019Surreptitious photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording or viewing; exemptions; classification; definitionsIn forcecited in 17 of our articles
A. It is unlawful for any person to knowingly photograph, videotape, film, digitally record or by any other means secretly view, with or without a device, another person without that person's consent under either of the following circumstances: 1. In a restroom, bathroom, locker room, bedroom or other location where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and the person is urinating, defecating, dressing, undressing, nude or involved in sexual intercourse or sexual contact. 2. In a manner that directly or indirectly captures or allows the viewing of the person's genitalia, buttock or female breast, whether clothed or unclothed, that is not otherwise visible to the public. B. It is unlawful to disclose, display, distribute or publish a photograph, videotape, film or digital recording made in violation of subsection A of this section without the consent or knowledge of the person depicted. C. This section does not apply to: 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State of Arizona v. Whytte Dragun Duncan (2024) found a hidden bathroom camera established a fair probability of surreptitious recording under 13-3019, supporting a search warrant. State of Arizona v. Agustin Gonzalez Gongora (2014) contrasted the section with the voyeurism statute, which adds a sexual stimulation element.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State of Arizona v. Agustin Gonzalez Gongora (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2014, 235 Ariz. 178)✓A man crouched behind a shopper in a store and looked up her dress; convicted under the separate voyeurism statute, he argued a 2006 draft amendment made upskirt viewing only a section 13-3019 offense, and the court rejected that reading of the two statutes.
- Tucson Unified School District v. Borek (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2014, 234 Ariz. 364)“…g or recording another person without their consent.” See A.R.S. § 13-3019(A), (D).…”
- State of Arizona v. Whytte Dragun Duncan (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2024, 548 P.3d 1128)✓A foster parent hid a camera inside a USB charger in the bathroom and recorded teenage girls showering and undressing; the court held that even with the unlawfully searched SD card excised, the affidavit showed a fair probability of a section 13-3019 offense.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Arizona Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Arizona Audio Recording Laws: Complete Guide to Consent Rules
§ 13-3005Interception of wire, electronic and oral communications; installation of pen register or trap and trace device; classification; exceptionsIn forcecited in 23 of our articles
A. Except as provided in this section and section 13-3012, a person is guilty of a class 5 felony who either: 1. Intentionally intercepts a wire or electronic communication to which he is not a party, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of either a sender or receiver thereof. 2. Intentionally intercepts a conversation or discussion at which he is not present, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of a party to such conversation or discussion. 3. Intentionally intercepts the deliberations of a jury or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do. B. Except as provided in sections 13-3012 and 13-3017, a person who intentionally and without lawful authority installs or uses a pen register or trap and trace device on the telephone lines or communications facilities of another person which are utilized for wire or electronic communication is guilty of a class 6 felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Morrison (2002) held that 13-3005 criminalizes unlawful interception but provides no exclusionary remedy, so a recording made in violation of it is not automatically inadmissible. State v. Hauss (1984) held the section inapplicable to a police station interview room talk where no reasonable expectation of privacy existed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Morrison (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2002, 203 Ariz. 489)“…ause it was made without his or her consent in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3005 and 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and was, therefo…”
- State v. Hauss (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1984, 142 Ariz. 159)✓Police secretly recorded an arrested suspect's talk with his girlfriend in a station interview room, after telling her the room was being monitored; the court held there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in that setting, so section 13-3005 did not apply.
- State v. Allgood (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1992, 171 Ariz. 522)“…communication.” (Emphasis added.) See also A.R.S. § 13-3005. (penalizing as a class 5 felony interc…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: One-Party Consent States: Complete 2026 Guide, Arizona Dashcam Laws: Rules for Dashboard Cameras in Vehicles, Arizona Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Rights for Renters and Property Owners
§ 13-3001DefinitionsIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. "Aural transfer" means a communication containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception. 2. "Child monitoring device" means a device that is capable of transmitting an audio or audiovisual signal and that is installed or used in a residence for child supervision or safety monitoring by any parent, guardian or other responsible person in the person's own residence. 3. "Communication service provider" means any person who is engaged in providing a service that allows its users to send or receive oral, wire or electronic communications or computer services. 4. "Electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature that is transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system but that does not include any of the following: (a) Any wire or oral communication. (b) Any communication made through a tone-only paging device. (c) Any communication from a tracking device. 5.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Ring (Arizona Supreme Court 2001, 200 Ariz. 267)“…ce ¶ 14 The collection of wiretap evidence is governed by A.R.S. §§ 13-3001 13-3019. Defendant argues that, becaus…”
- State v. Politte (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1982, 136 Ariz. 117)“…ve” than the federal law. He contends the Arizona statutes, A.R.S. §§ 13-3001, et seq., principally § 13-3010, are le…”
- State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2015, 238 Ariz. 503)“…een the point of origin and the point of reception . . . .” A.R.S. § 13-3001(14). 5“‘Electronic communication…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know
§ 13-3012ExemptionsIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: 1. The interception of wire, electronic or oral communications, the installation and operation of a pen register or trap and trace device, the providing of information, facilities or technical assistance to an investigative or law enforcement officer pursuant to a subpoena or an ex parte order granted pursuant to sections 13-3010, 13-3015, 13-3016, 13-3017 and 13-3018 or an emergency interception made in good faith pursuant to section 13-3015, including any of the foregoing acts by a communication service provider or its officers, agents or employees. 2. The normal use of services, equipment and facilities that are provided by a communication service provider pursuant to tariffs that are on file with the Arizona corporation commission or the federal communications commission and the normal functions of any operator of a switchboard. 3.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Walker (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1995, 185 Ariz. 228)“…ith the consent of one of the participants—is authorized by AR.S. section 13-3012(9) (Supp.1995). In State v. Allg…”
- State v. Morrison (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2002, 203 Ariz. 489)“…onsent to such interception ....” See also A.R.S. § 13-3012(9) (1997) (exempting from A.R.S. § 13-3…”
- State v. Pecina (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1995, 184 Ariz. 238)“…751 , 91 S.Ct. 1122, 1126 , 28 L.Ed.2d 453 (1971); A.R.S. § 13-3012(7). The state bears the burden of provi…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Employee Monitoring Laws (2026): Workplace Privacy Rules, Arizona Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13 (Criminal Code), Chapter 14 (SEXUAL OFFENSES)
§ 13-1424Voyeurism; classificationIn forcecited in 8 of our articles
A. It is unlawful to knowingly invade the privacy of another person without the knowledge of the other person for the purpose of sexual stimulation. B. It is unlawful for a person to disclose, display, distribute or publish a photograph, videotape, film or digital recording that is made in violation of subsection A of this section without the consent or knowledge of the person depicted. C. For the purposes of this section, a person's privacy is invaded if both of the following apply: 1. The person has a reasonable expectation that the person will not be photographed, videotaped, filmed, digitally recorded or otherwise viewed or recorded. 2. The person is photographed, videotaped, filmed, digitally recorded or otherwise viewed, with or without a device, either: (a) While the person is in a state of undress or partial dress. (b) While the person is engaged in sexual intercourse or sexual contact. (c) While the person is urinating or defecating. (d) In a manner that directly or indirectly captures or allows the viewing of the person's genitalia, buttock or female breast, whether clothed or unclothed, that is not otherwise visible to the public. D.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 15 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Blazak (Arizona Supreme Court 1977, 114 Ariz. 199)“…timony and not to the admissibility of the evidence. A.R.S. § 13-1424 permits a peace officer to apply to a m…”
- State v. Grijalva (Arizona Supreme Court 1975, 111 Ariz. 476)“…fense sought to suppress certain evidence taken pursuant to ARS § 13-1424, including photographs of the defendant…”
- Long v. Garrett (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1974, 22 Ariz. App. 397)“…tioner's special action challenges the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-1424, both on its face and as construed and…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Security Camera Laws: Rules for Homes and Businesses, Arizona Video Recording Laws: Rules for Cameras and Filming, Arizona Surreptitious Recording & Voyeurism Laws: ARS 13-3019 Penalties (2026)
§ 13-1425Unlawful disclosure of images depicting states of nudity or specific sexual activities; classification; definitionsIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
A. It is unlawful for a person to intentionally disclose an image of another person who is identifiable from the image itself or from information displayed in connection with the image if all of the following apply: 1. The person in the image is depicted in a state of nudity or is engaged in specific sexual activities. 2. The depicted person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Evidence that a person has sent an image to another person using an electronic device does not, on its own, remove the person's reasonable expectation of privacy for that image. Unless the realistic pictorial representation is created or modified by the depicted person, this paragraph does not apply to an image that is a realistic pictorial representation. 3. The image is disclosed with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce the depicted person. B. This section does not apply to any of the following: 1. The reporting of unlawful conduct. 2. Lawful and common practices of law enforcement, criminal reporting, legal proceedings or medical treatment. 3. Images involving voluntary exposure in a public or commercial setting. 4.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Arce v. Honeywell International Incorporated (District Court, D. Arizona 2024)“…f alleges Defendant’s filing of these photos violates A.R.S. § 13-1425, which prohibits the disclosure of imag…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Arizona Extortion Laws: Theft by Extortion, Sextortion and Penalties, Arizona Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13 (Criminal Code), Chapter 37 (MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES)
§ 13-3729Unlawful operation of model or unmanned aircraft; state preemption; classification; definitionsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
A. It is unlawful for a person to operate a model aircraft or a civil unmanned aircraft if the operation: 1. Is prohibited by a federal law or regulation that governs aeronautics, including federal aviation administration regulations. 2. Interferes with a law enforcement, firefighter or emergency services operation. B. It is unlawful for a person to operate or use an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system to intentionally photograph or loiter over or near a critical facility in the furtherance of any criminal offense. C. Except as authorized by law, a city, town or county may not enact or adopt any ordinance, policy or rule that relates to the ownership or operation of an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of an unmanned aircraft or an unmanned aircraft system. Any ordinance, policy or rule that violates this subsection, whether enacted or adopted by the city, town or county before or after August 6, 2016, is void. D. This section does not: 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Also relied on in: Arizona Drone Laws (2026): Privacy, Critical Facilities & Warrants
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13 (Criminal Code), Chapter 7 (SENTENCING AND IMPRISONMENT)
§ 13-702First time felony offenders; sentencing; definitionIn forcecited in 16 of our articles
A. Unless a specific sentence is otherwise provided, the term of imprisonment for a first felony offense shall be the presumptive sentence determined pursuant to subsection D of this section. Except for those felonies involving a dangerous offense or if a specific sentence is otherwise provided, the court may increase or reduce the presumptive sentence within the ranges set by subsection D of this section. Any reduction or increase shall be based on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances listed in section 13-701, subsections D and E and shall be within the ranges prescribed in subsection D of this section. B.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 446 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Shattuck (Arizona Supreme Court 1984, 140 Ariz. 582)“…ly under the authority of the language in what is currently A.R.S. § 13-702(D)(11) [formerly A.R.S. 13-702(D)(9)] —…”
- State v. Henderson (Arizona Supreme Court 2005, 210 Ariz. 561)“…t fit within the list of statutory aggravators codified in A.R.S. § 13-702.C: infliction or thr…”
- State v. Walton (Arizona Supreme Court 1989, 159 Ariz. 571)“…he Arizona death penalty statute. Under the provisions of A.R.S. § 13-702(D), which applies to noncapital sentenc…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Hit and Run Laws: Penalties and What to Do, Arizona Age of Consent Laws: Statutes, Penalties and Reporting, Arizona AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
§ 13-703Repetitive offenders; sentencingIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. If a person is convicted of multiple felony offenses that were not committed on the same occasion but that either are consolidated for trial purposes or are not historical prior felony convictions, the person shall be sentenced as a first time felony offender pursuant to section 13-702 for the first offense and as a category one repetitive offender for the second and subsequent offenses. B. Except as provided in section 13-704 or 13-705, a person shall be sentenced as a category two repetitive offender if the person is at least eighteen years of age or has been tried as an adult and stands convicted of a felony and has one historical prior felony conviction. C. Except as provided in section 13-704 or 13-705, a person shall be sentenced as a category three repetitive offender if the person is at least eighteen years of age or has been tried as an adult and stands convicted of a felony and has two or more historical prior felony convictions. D. The presumptive term set by this section may be aggravated or mitigated within the range under this section pursuant to section 13-701, subsections C, D and E. E.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 910 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Bible (Arizona Supreme Court 1993, 175 Ariz. 549)“…e or threat of violence on another person. See A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(2). “If, under the statutory…”
- State v. Moody (Arizona Supreme Court 2004, 208 Ariz. 424)“…eparate offense for which life imprisonment was imposable, A.R.S. § 13-703(F)(1) (1993); (2) he committed the mur…”
- State v. Newell (Arizona Supreme Court 2006, 212 Ariz. 389)“…apital trial is made up of a guilt proceeding or trial, see A.R.S. § 13-703(A), (D), and if necessary a sentencing…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Felony Classes and Misdemeanor Penalties (2026)
Sources and References
- ARS 13-3019 - Surreptitious photographing, videotaping, filming or digitally recording(azleg.gov).gov
- ARS 13-3005 - Interception of wire, electronic and oral communications(azleg.gov).gov
- ARS 13-1424 - Voyeurism; classification(azleg.gov).gov
- ARS 13-3729 - Unlawful operation of unmanned aircraft(azleg.gov).gov
- ARS 13-702 - First time felony offenders; sentencing(azleg.gov).gov
- ARS 13-703 - Repetitive offenders; sentencing(azleg.gov).gov
- ARS 13-3012 - Exemptions to wiretapping(azleg.gov).gov
- ARS 13-3001 - Definitions for interception of communications(azleg.gov).gov
- ARS 13-3019 (2024) - Justia reference(law.justia.com)
- ARS 13-1425 - Unlawful disclosure of images depicting states of nudity or specific sexual activities(azleg.gov)