Hidden Cameras in Your Own Home: What's Legal (2027)

Yes, in most states it is legal to put a hidden, video-only camera in the shared areas of your own home, such as the living room, kitchen or entryway, but a camera in a bedroom or bathroom that someone else uses can be a crime even though you own the house, and a camera that records other people's conversations can violate the federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2511) and state eavesdropping laws. Owning the home is not a blanket defense: several states' privacy statutes turn on the consent of the person being recorded, not on who owns the property, and Illinois makes it a felony to video record a person in that person's residence without consent, which includes a spouse, roommate or live-in caregiver in a home you share.

The answer shifts with who is on camera. A spouse or partner, a roommate, a guest, a live-in caregiver and your own teenager each raise a different mix of video, audio and stalking rules, and courts have applied these laws between people who share a home.

Scope: This page explains US federal law and a selection of state laws on cameras inside your own home, current as of November 6, 2026. It is general legal information, not legal advice. State statutes differ, and city ordinances, leases and HOA rules can add limits. Each state's full rules are in the surveillance camera laws by state guide.

Can You Put Hidden Cameras in Your Own Home?

For video of shared rooms, generally yes. No federal law we found regulates where a homeowner may place a video-only camera on their own property, and the federal Wiretap Act covers sound, not silent video. In United States v. Koyomejian, 970 F.2d 536 (9th Cir. 1992) (en banc), the court said of the Act's definitions: "By their plain meaning, these definitions do not apply to silent video surveillance."

That leaves state law, and three questions decide most cases inside a home:

1. Whose private space does the camera see? A living room everyone walks through is different from the bedroom where a roommate sleeps or the bathroom where a guest showers.
2. Does it record sound? A microphone brings in wiretap and eavesdropping laws, which are stricter than the rules for silent video.
3. Why is it there? Security monitoring is treated differently from a camera used for a sexual purpose, to gather evidence against a spouse, or to track and intimidate someone.

Hidden versus visible matters less than people expect. Most of these laws turn on consent and place, not on whether the camera can be seen, though a secret camera is what most voyeurism statutes describe, and a visible camera with everyone's knowledge removes most of the risk.

Common Areas vs. Bedrooms and Bathrooms

Shared rooms

In most states, a video-only camera in a living room, kitchen, hallway or entryway of your own home falls outside the criminal statutes. Illinois is a major exception: its residence statute, covered below, has no shared-room limit, so video of a person who lives with you, without that person's consent, can be a felony there. Some statutes say so expressly by exempting home security monitoring:

Arkansas does not define "security monitoring," and we found no Arkansas decision applying its exemption; no Michigan appellate decision we found decides whether Michigan's covers a camera in a nanny's, guest's or roommate's bedroom. A camera aimed at a roommate's bed is hard to describe as security monitoring.

States where even an owner can commit the crime in their own home

A group of states make it a crime to install or use a recording device in a "private place" without the consent of the people entitled to privacy there, with no nudity or sexual-purpose element and no general exemption for a homeowner (Georgia's homeowner exceptions, shown in the table, require a security, crime-prevention or crime-detection purpose). No court decision we found has applied these statutes to an owner's camera in a shared room, so how they treat a living-room camera is unsettled. A camera in a bedroom or bathroom someone else uses is a much clearer risk.

Georgia's Supreme Court has said its statute applies between spouses. In Rutter v. Rutter, 294 Ga. 1 (2013), a divorce case in which a wife "surreptitiously installed several video surveillance devices in the marital home," the court said the statute is to be applied to "protect all persons from invasions upon their privacy, including invasions made upon the privacy of one spouse by the other in a private place," quoting Ransom v. Ransom (1985).

Both of Georgia's homeowner exceptions require a security, crime-prevention or crime-detection purpose, so a camera installed to gather evidence about a spouse does not fit them easily. See Georgia surveillance camera laws.

States that reach a camera in a home in listed settings

Other states reach a hidden camera recording a clothed person, but only in named places. Several of them name the home, and California's camera-viewing offense, listed last, is broader:

• Illinois: it is a Class 4 felony to "knowingly make a video record or transmit live video of another person in that other person's residence without that person's consent" (720 ILCS 5/26-4(a-5)). A shared home is also the residence of a spouse, roommate or live-in caregiver. In People v. Maillet, 2019 IL App (2d) 161114, the defendant argued the statute did not apply when the residence was also his own; the court rejected that reading, saying the statute protects the person recorded "regardless of the residence of the person who made the recording," and affirmed the conviction.
• Texas: since September 1, 2025, recording a person without consent "with intent to invade the privacy of the other person" in a place where a person could reasonably expect to disrobe in privacy, which "includes a bathroom, bedroom, and changing room," is a state jail felony, and a posted sign "is not sufficient to establish the person's consent" (Penal Code 21.15, as amended by HB 1465).
• New York: using an imaging device "For no legitimate purpose" to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person in a bedroom, bathroom or similar room "without such person's knowledge or consent" is unlawful surveillance, a class E felony, and installing or using such a device in one of those rooms creates a rebuttable presumption that it was for no legitimate purpose (Penal Law 250.45(3)).
• Vermont: it is a crime to "intentionally conduct surveillance or intentionally photograph, film, or record in any format a person without that person's knowledge and consent while the person ... is in a place where the person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy within a home or residence" (13 V.S.A. 2605(d)).
• Maryland: a person may not place a camera on property where a private residence is located to conduct "deliberate surreptitious observation of an individual inside the private residence," and it is no defense that the defendant owns the home, subject to the adult-resident exception above (Crim. Law 3-903).
• California: viewing by camera the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room or any other area in which the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, so not only listed rooms, "with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside," is a misdemeanor, and for the concealed-camera recording offense in 647(j)(3), which requires a purpose of viewing the body or undergarments of a person who may be undressed, it is no defense that the defendant was "a cohabitant, landlord, tenant, cotenant" of the victim (Penal Code 647(j)).

Everywhere: recordings of someone undressed

Every state and D.C. has a criminal law against secretly recording people who are undressed, or their intimate areas, where they expect privacy. In 22 jurisdictions, secretly recording a clothed person in at least some private settings is a crime even without nudity or a sexual purpose; in the rest, the main video offense requires that the recording capture nudity or intimate areas or be made for a sexual or lewd purpose (D.C., Arizona and Wisconsin also cover recording someone using a bathroom or toilet). The elements, including intent, differ from state to state, so a bedroom camera that would be a felony in one state may fall under a narrower offense, or none, in another unless it captures someone undressing.

A bedroom or bathroom is where a camera is most likely to capture exactly that. The safer approach, in every state, is to keep cameras out of any bedroom or bathroom that someone other than you uses. For the state-by-state rules on bathrooms and changing areas, see bathroom camera laws.

Audio: The Federal Wiretap Act and State Eavesdropping Laws

The microphone is where home cameras most often cross the line. Federal law makes it a crime to intentionally intercept "any wire, oral, or electronic communication" (18 U.S.C. 2511(1)(a)), punishable by a fine, up to five years in prison, or both.

The federal rule is one-party consent. Section 2511(2)(d) allows a private person to record "where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State."

That exception helps only a participant. A camera that picks up your spouse on the phone, your roommate talking with a friend, or your teenager talking with guests while you are at work is recording conversations you are not part of. Without a participant's consent, that is outside the one-party exception in federal law, in every one-party state that has an interception statute, and in every all-party state.

State law adds to this. Thirteen states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington) require every party's consent to record at least one major type of conversation, so even a conversation you take part in may need everyone's consent there.

Connecticut and Nevada apply that rule only to phone calls, Oregon only to in-person conversations, and Delaware has two conflicting statutes. The other 37 states and D.C. follow a one-party rule, and Vermont has no state interception statute for private parties, so federal law governs audio there. The US recording laws guide has each state's rule.

A person whose conversation is unlawfully recorded can sue under 18 U.S.C. 2520, within two years of first having a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation. The court "may assess" as damages the greater of actual damages and the violator's profits or statutory damages of "$100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000," and several federal appeals courts, including the Sixth Circuit in Dorris v. Absher, 179 F.3d 420 (6th Cir. 1999), have held that the court has discretion whether to award those damages at all. The simplest way to take audio off the table is to turn the camera's microphone off.

Recording a Spouse or Partner

Audio: the Wiretap Act has no spousal exception in its text

Section 2511(1) applies to "any person" who intercepts a communication, and nothing in its text exempts a husband, wife or partner. For a time one federal court read an exception into it. In Simpson v. Simpson, 490 F.2d 803 (5th Cir. 1974), a husband attached a recording device to the phone lines in the marital home and intercepted his wife's calls with another man, and the Fifth Circuit concluded that "Congress did not intend such a far-reaching result, one extending into areas normally left to states, those of the marital home and domestic conflicts."

Other courts disagreed. The Sixth Circuit held in United States v. Jones, 542 F.2d 661 (6th Cir. 1976) that "the plain language of the section and the Act's legislative history compels interpretation of the statute to include interspousal wiretaps."

In Glazner v. Glazner, 347 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir. 2003) (en banc), a case in which a husband put a recording device on a phone in the marital home during divorce proceedings, the Eleventh Circuit, which had been bound by Simpson, overruled it: "we hold that no exception for inter-spousal wiretapping exists in Title III." It noted that since Simpson "an overwhelming majority of the federal circuit and district courts, as well as state courts, addressing the issue have refused to imply an exception," and it applied its ruling to the husband's past conduct.

Those cases involved telephone taps. The same section of the Act also covers "oral" communications, meaning spoken conversations where the speakers expect not to be recorded, which is what a hidden room microphone captures.

Video: a shared bedroom can still be a private place

Sharing a bedroom with someone does not mean they have agreed to be filmed there. In Lewis v. LeGrow, 258 Mich. App. 175 (2003), a man secretly videotaped sex with partners in his own bedroom and argued it was not a "private place" because they had willingly exposed themselves to him.

The Michigan Court of Appeals held, "in this case of first impression, that defendant's bedroom is a 'private place' within the plain meaning of § 539d." That case applied Michigan's pre-2004 statute; since September 1, 2004, Michigan exempts home security monitoring by the owner or principal occupant unless it is done for a lewd or lascivious purpose.

Some states have closed the relationship argument by statute. Since August 5, 2025, Arkansas law says it is not a defense to video voyeurism that the defendant "was in a romantic relationship with the other person who was secretly observed, viewed, photographed, filmed, or videotaped" (Ark. Code 5-16-101(e), Act 765 of 2025). See Arkansas surveillance camera laws.

When recording becomes domestic abuse or stalking

Some states treat secret recording within a household as domestic violence. In Arkansas, video voyeurism now counts as "domestic abuse," so a victim who is a family or household member of the person who recorded them, a group that includes spouses, people who have lived together and current or former dating partners, can petition for an order of protection (Ark. Code 9-15-103, 9-15-201(d)). In Alabama, criminal surveillance under 13A-11-32 becomes domestic violence in the third degree when the victim is a current or former spouse, a household member, a current or former dating partner or another person listed in 13A-6-132.

Stalking laws matter too. Many states' stalking or harassment laws list surveillance or monitoring as part of a course of conduct, and some go further:

• D.C.: a stalking "course of conduct" includes acts to "Follow, monitor, place under surveillance" another person "by any means," and "any device" includes "a camera, spycam, computer, spyware, microphone, audio or video recorder" (D.C. Code 22-3132).
• Kentucky: the stalking statute lists the use of "Cameras or other recording devices," and since July 15, 2026 it also covers conduct that "Follows, monitors, observes, surveils" another person (KRS 508.130).
• Indiana: unlawful surveillance under IC 35-46-8.5-1 covers placing a tracking device on a person, or on property the person owns or uses, without that person's knowledge or consent. The statute does not apply to tracking a spouse, child, grandchild, parent or grandparent, or to placing a tracker on property the tracker owns or has a contractual interest in, unless the tracker is the subject of a protective order obtained by that family member or, for owned property, by a person likely to use that property.
• Michigan: installing a tracking device on a motor vehicle without the owner's knowledge and consent is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year, a fine up to $1,000, or both (MCL 750.539l).

Federal law has a stalking statute as well. Under 18 U.S.C. 2261A(2), it is a crime to "place under surveillance with intent to kill, injure, harass, or intimidate another person" using the mail, an interactive computer service or another facility of interstate commerce in a course of conduct that places the person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury, or causes, attempts to cause or would reasonably be expected to cause substantial emotional distress. Monitoring software that captures a partner's messages can also raise the Wiretap Act, which covers "electronic" communications as well as calls and conversations.

If you are being watched by a partner, the restraining orders guide explains how protective orders work.

Roommates and Shared Rentals

A roommate's bedroom is that person's private space, even if your name is on the lease or deed. The statutes above protect the person recorded, not the person who controls the property: Georgia's turns on "the consent of all persons observed," Hawaii's and Maine's on the consent of "the person or persons entitled to privacy," and Illinois's on recording a person "in that other person's residence." California's concealed-camera offense says it is no defense that the defendant was the victim's "cotenant."

Common areas are less clear. A camera in a shared living room or kitchen that all roommates know about raises few issues, but in the states with "device in a private place" statutes and no homeowner exception, no court we found has decided whether a shared room counts as a private place as to a roommate. Illinois's residence statute has no private-room limit at all, so video of a roommate in your shared apartment without that person's consent can be a felony there. The safer practice is a written agreement among roommates about any camera: where it is, whether it records sound, and who can see the footage.

A landlord's permission does not change the analysis. These statutes require the consent of the person being recorded, so a landlord cannot supply it for a roommate. Your lease may separately limit installing devices, so check it before mounting anything. For cameras a landlord installs, see landlord security camera laws; for a host's cameras in a vacation rental, see hidden cameras in Airbnb and vacation rentals.

Cameras in a Teenager's or Child's Bedroom

Video: parental authority is rarely a written exception

A camera watching a sleeping infant or a young child's playroom is ordinary home monitoring. The risk grows as children get older, because a bedroom camera can capture a child dressing or undressing. Parental status is not among the exceptions written into most of the voyeurism statutes quoted on this page. Delaware is the exception: its felony of recording a person who is undressing or exposed where people normally disrobe, 11 Del. C. 1335(a)(6), does not apply to a parent or guardian, in the parent's own dwelling or on the parent's own property, when the subject is the parent's child under 18 whose primary residence is there, unless the acts are intended to produce sexual gratification for any person. Delaware's separate offense of installing a device in a private place without consent, 1335(a)(2), has no such parent exception.

The other exceptions these statutes contain are for security monitoring by an owner or occupant (Arkansas, Michigan unless lewd, D.C.) or an adult resident (Maryland), and none of them speaks to a camera aimed at a child changing.

People v. Maillet shows how this plays out. The defendant, a stepfather who lived in the home, left a recording iPod partly covered by clothes on a laundry basket by the bathroom door before his 15-year-old stepdaughter showered. The Illinois appellate court affirmed his conviction under 720 ILCS 5/26-4(a-5), rejecting the argument that the statute does not apply when the home is also the defendant's.

Several states raise the penalty when the person recorded is a minor. Examples from our state research: Illinois's video recording offense becomes a Class 3 felony when the victim is under 18, Connecticut's voyeurism offense becomes a class C felony when the subject is under 16, Arkansas's becomes a Class C felony when the victim is under 14, and New Mexico's becomes a fourth-degree felony when the victim is under 18. In Florida, digital voyeurism penalties are reclassified upward for an offender 19 or older who is a family or household member of the victim (Fla. Stat. 810.145(7)(b)).

Federal child-exploitation law is far more severe but also narrower. It applies to a visual depiction of a minor engaged in "sexually explicit conduct," which includes "lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area" (18 U.S.C. 2256), when its interstate-commerce conditions are met.

Section 2251(b) names "Any parent, legal guardian, or person having custody or control of a minor who knowingly permits" a minor to engage in such conduct to produce a visual depiction, and 2251(e) sets a sentence of 15 to 30 years for a first offense (18 U.S.C. 2251). Whether a particular image meets those definitions is a fact question for prosecutors and courts; the practical point is that no camera should be positioned where a child undresses.

Georgia's statute protects "all persons observed," and a teen's bedroom is a place where the teen may reasonably expect privacy. Georgia does have a parent provision, O.C.G.A. 16-11-66(d), covering a parent monitoring a minor child's telephone conversations by an extension phone in the family home, or the child's electronic or other communications from within the family home, for the child's welfare; it is written about communications, so read it closely before relying on it for a video camera.

Audio: vicarious consent for a child is narrow and unsettled

A parent is not a party to a teenager's conversations with friends. Some courts have recognized a narrow doctrine letting a parent consent on a minor child's behalf. In Pollock v. Pollock, 154 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1998), a mother taped her teenage daughter's phone calls with the girl's father and stepmother. The Sixth Circuit adopted the doctrine under the federal Wiretap Act and held "that as long as the guardian has a good faith, objectively reasonable basis for believing that it is necessary and in the best interest of the child to consent on behalf of his or her minor child to the taping of telephone conversations, the guardian may vicariously consent on behalf of the child to the recording."

It then reversed the summary judgment for the mother and sent the case to trial on whether she actually had that basis.

New York's highest court adopted a similar test in People v. Badalamenti, 27 N.Y.3d 423 (2016), requiring that the parent had "a good faith belief that the recording of a conversation to which the child was a party was necessary to serve the best interests of the child" and "an objectively reasonable basis for this belief." That case involved a father who recorded, on his own phone, what he heard over an open cell phone line in the home where his young son lived.

Neither case lets a parent record a child's conversations simply because the parent is curious or wants evidence for a custody fight, and the doctrine has not been adopted everywhere. Treat it as unsettled, and keep any camera in a child's room video-only.

Practical choices that reduce risk: keep any camera in a child's room visible and video-only, aim it away from where the child changes, tell an older child the camera is there, and stop using it in the bedroom as the child gets older.

Using Home Camera Footage in a Divorce or Custody Case

Whether a recording can be used in court depends on the state, the court and how it was made, so no one can promise it will be admitted. Some rules are fixed by statute:

• Unlawful audio is excluded federally. Under 18 U.S.C. 2515, when a wire or oral communication has been intercepted in violation of the Act, "no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence" in any court or proceeding of the United States, a state or a political subdivision. That rule applies to audio; it does not reach silent video.
• Some states exclude more. Georgia's Supreme Court said in Rutter that evidence obtained in violation of its privacy statute "is inadmissible in any court of this State" (O.C.G.A. 16-11-67). In that case the husband moved to exclude his wife's hidden-camera videos from their divorce.
• The recording can cost more than it gains. Glazner arose from a divorce, and the federal civil action under 18 U.S.C. 2520 lets the person recorded seek damages, which the court may award, plus punitive damages in appropriate cases and attorney's fees. A recording made to gather evidence can also undercut the "security purpose" some state exceptions require.

If footage of a child being harmed exists, keep the original files unedited, call 911 in an emergency, and report it to police and your state's child protective services agency. For more on how courts treat recordings, see recordings as evidence, and for custody basics see child custody laws. A family lawyer licensed in your state is the right person to assess a specific recording before you rely on it.

What to Do If You Find a Hidden Camera in Your Home

If you feel unsafe, leave and call 911. Otherwise, these steps help preserve evidence and keep your options open:

1. Leave it in place if you can. Consider photographing the device where it sits, what it points at, and anything connecting it to power or Wi-Fi, before anyone moves it. Note the date, time and room.
2. Report it to police. Use the non-emergency line when no one is in danger. Whether a crime occurred depends on your state's statute, and the police and prosecutor decide whether to charge.
3. Think about your safety plan. If the person who installed it is a partner or household member, a protective order may be available depending on your state's rules on who can petition. A domestic violence advocate can help with safety planning.
4. Consider a civil claim. If audio was recorded, the federal Wiretap Act allows a civil suit (18 U.S.C. 2520). Most states also recognize a civil claim for intrusion upon seclusion, which requires an intrusion that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; New York and Virginia do not recognize it as a common-law tort. Some state camera statutes, such as Michigan's, also support a civil action. A lawyer can tell you which claims fit your facts and deadlines.
5. Check your other devices. Cameras are not the only monitoring tools; an unfamiliar device on your home Wi-Fi network, or an unknown app on your phone, is worth a closer look.

If you rent, the landlord security camera laws guide covers cameras a landlord installs. If the camera belongs to a neighbor and points at your home, see neighbor security camera laws.

If You Want Cameras in Your Home: A Lawful Setup

These are practical choices, not legal requirements, but they line up with how the laws above are written:

• Put cameras in shared areas such as entryways, the living room and the kitchen, and keep them out of every bedroom and bathroom that someone else uses.
• Turn the microphone off, or record audio only with the written consent of the adults in the home, and remember that the all-party states may require everyone's consent.
• Tell the people who live in or regularly stay in your home where the cameras are. Consent is the element most of these statutes turn on.
• For a nanny or other caregiver, put the camera policy in writing; see nanny cam laws.
• Secure the account with two-factor authentication and limit who can see the footage, so the cameras cannot become someone else's monitoring tool.

What Changes in Home Camera Law in 2027

Status as of November 6, 2026. These are the 2027 dates our research found that bear on cameras inside a home:

The other 2027 camera changes in our 51-state research concern workplaces, care facilities, landlords' smart-entry systems and drones, not cameras inside a home; the surveillance camera laws hub lists them.

Pending bills, status as of November 6, 2026: Illinois HB 4262, the Protecting Children from Hidden Cameras Act, was referred to the Senate Assignments committee on April 28, 2026 and has not passed (bill status). In New York, S524-A, which would create new voyeurism offenses, passed the Senate and is in an Assembly committee. Neither is law.

Several changes already took effect: Texas widened Penal Code 21.15 to bedrooms on September 1, 2025; Arkansas removed the romantic-relationship defense to video voyeurism on August 5, 2025; Kentucky's stalking statute began naming conduct that "Follows, monitors, observes, surveils" another person on July 15, 2026; and Vermont amended 13 V.S.A. 2605 effective July 1, 2026 (Act 89), leaving the home-surveillance offense in subsection (d), which predates that act, in place.

Where to Get Help

If you are in danger, call 911. If you believe a partner is monitoring you, a local domestic violence program can help with safety planning, including technology safety. For a hidden camera you found, the police non-emergency line and, if charges follow, the prosecutor's victim-witness unit can explain next steps.

For a protective order or a civil claim, your state court's self-help center explains the process, your state or local bar association's lawyer referral service can connect you with a lawyer who handles privacy or family cases, and legal aid organizations help people who qualify by income.

This page is general legal information about cameras in your own home under US law, current as of November 6, 2026. It is not legal advice. For advice about your situation, talk with a lawyer licensed in your state.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it legal to put hidden cameras in your own home?

In most states, a hidden video-only camera in the shared rooms of your own home is legal. A hidden camera in a bedroom or bathroom someone else uses can be a crime even though you own the house, and a few states' statutes make it a crime to install a device in a private place without the consent of the people entitled to privacy there, with no clear homeowner exception. Illinois makes it a felony to video record a person in that person's residence without that person's consent, even in a home you share. Recording other people's conversations can violate the federal Wiretap Act.

Can I record my spouse in my own house?

Silent video of shared rooms is generally lawful, but a hidden camera in a private place can be a crime even between spouses: Georgia's Supreme Court has said its statute protects one spouse from the other, and Arkansas law says a romantic relationship is no defense to video voyeurism. Recording a spouse's conversations you are not part of, without a participant's consent, can violate the federal Wiretap Act, which federal appeals courts have held has no spousal exception.

Can my husband or wife put a camera in our bedroom?

Sharing a bedroom is not consent to being filmed there. A Michigan appeals court held a defendant's own bedroom was a private place as to the partner he secretly taped, and many states criminalize secretly recording a person undressed or engaged in sexual activity. Whether a hidden bedroom camera that captures no nudity is a crime depends on the state.

Is it legal to put a camera in my teenager's room?

A visible, video-only camera is lower risk, but parental status is not an exception written into most of the voyeurism statutes quoted on this page; Delaware's undress-recording felony is the narrow exception, for a parent's own child under 18 living in the home, unless the recording is meant for anyone's sexual gratification. A camera that captures a teen undressing can bring in voyeurism laws, several states raise penalties when the victim is a minor, and federal law reaches sexually explicit images of minors. Recording a teen's conversations with friends raises the wiretap consent problem.

Can a parent record a child's phone calls?

Some courts, including the Sixth Circuit in Pollock v. Pollock (1998) and New York's highest court in People v. Badalamenti (2016), let a parent consent for a minor child, but only with a good-faith, objectively reasonable belief that recording is necessary for the child's welfare. The doctrine is narrow, not adopted everywhere, and unsettled for in-home audio.

Can my roommate put a camera in our apartment?

A camera in a shared room that everyone knows about raises few issues, but a hidden camera in your bedroom or bathroom can be a crime, and in Illinois video recording a person in that person's residence without consent is a felony even when the recorder lives there too. A landlord cannot consent for you. Audio of your conversations without a participant's consent can violate wiretap law.

Can I use a hidden camera recording in my divorce or custody case?

It depends on the state and how it was made. Federal law, 18 U.S.C. 2515, bars evidence from unlawfully intercepted audio, though not silent video, and some states, such as Georgia, exclude evidence obtained in violation of their privacy statutes. An unlawful recording can also expose you to criminal charges and a civil suit, so ask a family lawyer before relying on one.

Do I have to tell guests about cameras in my home?

No federal law we found requires it for video of shared rooms. Telling people is still the safer practice, because many state statutes turn on the consent of the people recorded, and in states with all-party consent rules recording a conversation can require everyone's consent.

What should I do if I find a hidden camera in my home?

If you feel unsafe, leave and call 911. Otherwise, consider photographing the device where it sits before anyone moves it, and report it to police. If a partner or household member installed it, a protective order may be available depending on your state, and a lawyer can explain civil claims and their deadlines.