Landlord Security Camera Laws: What Is Allowed?
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
Across the United States, a landlord may install video cameras in shared common areas like hallways, lobbies, parking lots, and laundry rooms for security. A landlord may never place a camera inside a tenant's private unit, a bathroom, or any space with a reasonable expectation of privacy. Hidden cameras there are criminal voyeurism, and recording audio can trigger wiretap law.
Jurisdiction scope: This page explains the national framework for landlord video surveillance of rental property, including the common-area rule, the inside-unit prohibition, and the audio overlay. It is general legal information, not legal advice. For your state's recording-consent rule, see that state's recording laws page.
Can a Landlord Install Security Cameras?
Yes, in the right places. There is no single federal statute on landlord cameras. The rule comes from state voyeurism and unlawful-surveillance statutes, state landlord-tenant law, and the common-law reasonable expectation of privacy test. Cameras are permitted in shared and common areas such as exterior entrances, hallways, stairwells, lobbies, parking lots, and laundry rooms, because tenants do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy there and landlords often have a duty to keep common areas safe. A Connecticut legislative analysis concluded that state law implicitly allows landlords to surveil hallways and stairwells of multi-family rentals for exactly that reason.
The hard limit is the private space. A landlord may not place a camera inside a tenant's dwelling unit, in a bathroom, in a bedroom, or in any area where a person would reasonably expect privacy. That line does not move based on who owns the building.
Hidden Cameras Inside a Unit Are a Crime
Secret cameras in private rental spaces are a criminal offense, typically a felony, in essentially every state. Florida's digital voyeurism statute (formerly titled video voyeurism), , expressly names the interior of a residential dwelling as a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy. New York treats secretly recording a person in a bedroom or bathroom as unlawful surveillance in the second degree, a class E felony. Several statutes specifically reject the building-owner defense. California provides that it is not a defense to criminal invasion of privacy that the recorder was a landlord, tenant, employer, or business partner.
A lease clause cannot fix this. No lease can authorize recording in a bathroom or bedroom over a criminal statute. If a tenant discovers a hidden camera inside their unit, that is almost certainly a crime regardless of any language buried in the rental agreement.
| State | Rule | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | Common-area hallway and stairwell cameras implicitly allowed | OLR 2022-R-0234 |
| Florida | Digital voyeurism law names the interior of a dwelling as a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy | |
| New York | Unlawful surveillance in bedroom or bathroom is a felony | Penal Law 250.45 |
| California | Landlord status is not a defense to secret recording | (j) |
| Michigan | Crime to record in a private place; owner-security exception | MCL 750.539d |
| Texas | Invasive visual recording in private spaces is a felony | Penal Code 21.15 |
Audio Recording Raises the Bar
Video and audio are treated separately, and audio is stricter. The federal Wiretap Act and state eavesdropping laws govern sound. In all-party-consent states such as California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Washington, recording tenants' conversations in an enclosed common area like a narrow hallway or a laundry room, without consent, can violate wiretap law even where a video-only camera would be lawful. This is why most rental security cameras record video only, or why landlords post visible signage where audio is captured.
Entry Rights Are Not Surveillance Rights
A landlord's statutory right to enter the unit for inspection or repair, usually with advance notice, is not a right to leave a recording device behind. Entering to fix a faucet does not authorize ongoing surveillance of the tenant's living space. Some states do recognize narrow exceptions. Michigan's statute, for example, shields owner-directed security monitoring in a residence unless it is done for a lewd or lascivious purpose, but that is unusual and should not be generalized to a separate tenant's private unit.
For short-term rentals, the rules are tightening. Airbnb banned all indoor cameras globally, effective April 2024, regardless of disclosure, and outdoor cameras must be disclosed. A hidden indoor camera in a short-term rental is also criminal voyeurism under state law, so the platform ban and the criminal statute point the same direction.
Watch out: Disclosure of plainly visible common-area video cameras is best practice but not always legally required. Covert audio in an enclosed common area is a different matter and can be unlawful on its own. Keep cameras video-only in shared spaces unless you have consent.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a landlord install security cameras in an apartment building?
Yes for video in shared common areas such as hallways, lobbies, parking lots, and laundry rooms for security. No for inside a tenant's unit, a bathroom, or any space with a reasonable expectation of privacy. The common-area versus private-area line is the key distinction.
Is it illegal for a landlord to put a hidden camera in your apartment?
Yes. Secretly recording inside a private dwelling unit is criminal voyeurism or unlawful surveillance in essentially every state, often a felony, and a lease clause cannot make it legal. See statutes like Florida's digital voyeurism law at 810.145, New York Penal Law 250.45, and California Penal Code 647(j).
Can a landlord record audio with security cameras?
Audio is far more restricted than video. The federal Wiretap Act plus state eavesdropping law apply, and in all-party-consent states recording tenants' conversations without consent can be illegal even in common areas. Most rental cameras are video only.
Does a landlord have to tell tenants about security cameras?
Many states do not require notice for plainly visible video-only cameras in public common areas, but disclosure is best practice. Covert audio in private or enclosed spaces is generally unlawful. Notice for video and consent for audio are different questions.
Can a landlord put cameras outside the rental or at the door?
Exterior cameras covering entrances, driveways, and yards are generally allowed if they do not peer into private interior spaces through windows. The angle matters. For short-term rentals, Airbnb requires outdoor cameras to be disclosed.
Are cameras allowed in Airbnb and short-term rentals?
Airbnb banned all indoor cameras globally, effective April 2024, regardless of disclosure, and outdoor cameras must be disclosed and cannot monitor indoor spaces. State voyeurism law also applies to any hidden indoor camera.
Updates
Updated the Florida reference to reflect the statute’s current name, digital voyeurism (Fla. Stat. 810.145), and tightened the comparison-table description of what that statute actually prohibits.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
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.
Florida Statutes
§ 810.145Digital voyeurism.In forcecited in 15 of our articles
(1) As used in this section, the term:(a) “Broadcast” means electronically transmitting a visual image or visual recording with the intent that it be viewed by another person. (b) “Family or household member” has the same meaning as in s. 741.28. (c) “Imaging device” means any mechanical, digital, or electronic viewing device; still camera; camcorder; motion picture camera; or any other instrument, equipment, or format capable of recording, storing, or transmitting visual images of another person. (d) “Position of authority or trust” means a position occupied by a person 18 years of age or older who is a relative, caregiver, coach, employer, or other person who, by reason of his or her relationship with the victim, is able to exercise undue influence over him or her or exploit his or her trust. (e) “Privately exposing the body” means exposing a sexual organ.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 3 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kenneth Isaac Parkerson v. State of Florida (2015) rejected a facial overbreadth challenge to section 810.145, holding the video voyeurism statute regulates conduct, not pure speech. Clemen v. Surterra Holdings, Inc. (2024) drew on its privacy definition and exemption for clearly visible cameras when dismissing an intrusion claim.
Leading cases:
- Kenneth Isaac Parkerson v. State of Florida (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2015, 163 So. 3d 683)✓A man caught watching people inside their homes, once carrying a camera, argued Florida's video voyeurism statute was facially overbroad because it could reach journalists and investigators; the court held section 810.145 is not overbroad and affirmed his convictions.
- Clemen v. Surterra Holdings, Inc. (District Court, M.D. Florida 2024)✓A worker sued over cameras aimed at a workplace changing area; dismissing her intrusion on seclusion claim, the court drew on section 810.145's privacy definition and its exclusion for obvious cameras, and found no authority making an alleged violation outrageous per se.
- Keith Taig v. City of Vero Beach (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 2023)✓A spa customer recorded by covert police cameras installed under a court order argued Florida statutes including section 810.145 gave officers clear notice of customers' privacy rights; the court held those state statutes do not clearly establish a federal constitutional right.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Florida Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), Florida Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras and Privacy Rules (2026)
New York Penal Law
§ 250.45Unlawful surveillance in the second degreeIn forcecited in 18 of our articles
Unlawful surveillance in the second degree. A person is guilty of unlawful surveillance in the second degree when: 1. For his or her own, or another person's amusement, entertainment, or profit, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing a person, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person's knowledge or consent; or 2. For his or her own, or another person's sexual arousal or sexual gratification, he or she intentionally uses or installs, or permits the utilization or installation of an imaging device to surreptitiously view, broadcast or record a person dressing or undressing or the sexual or other intimate parts of such person at a place and time when such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without such person's knowledge or consent; or 3.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov
Cited in 51 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):People v. Piznarski (2013) held Penal Law 250.45 reaches a participant who secretly records consensual sex, that the victim kept a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that the one-party consent rule for eavesdropping does not apply. People v. Evans (2006) applied section 250.45(3) to a camera hidden in a bedroom.
Leading cases:
- People v. Evans (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2006, 27 A.D.3d 905)✓A man placed a video camera in his girlfriend's 12-year-old daughter's bedroom and recorded her undressing, then pleaded guilty under Section 250.45(3); the court affirmed, holding the plea needed no express admission of no legitimate purpose given the statutory presumption.
- People v. Lema (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2017, 152 A.D.3d 440)✓A man used a phone camera to record under women's skirts on a subway train, but dark lighting produced no image of intimate parts; the court affirmed, holding Section 250.45(4) is satisfied when a device is used for the purpose of making such a recording.
- People v. Piznarski (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2013, 113 A.D.3d 166)✓A student secretly recorded sex with two women using a camera left in view on his bedroom desk; the court affirmed under Section 250.45, holding the statute reaches a participant who records a consensual encounter and that a visible camera can still be used surreptitiously.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New York Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use, New York Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Rights for Renters and Property Owners, New York Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and Healthcare Privacy
California Penal Code
§ 647In forcecited in 16 of our articles
Except as provided in paragraph (5) of subdivision (b) and in subdivisions (k) and (l), a person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor: (a) An individual who solicits anyone to engage in or who engages in lewd or dissolute conduct in a public place or in a place open to the public or exposed to public view. (b) (1) An individual who solicits, or who agrees to engage in, or who engages in, an act of prostitution with the intent to receive compensation, money, or anything of value from another person. An individual agrees to engage in an act of prostitution when, with specific intent to so engage, the individual manifests an acceptance of an offer or solicitation by another person to so engage, regardless of whether the offer or solicitation was made by a person who also possessed the specific intent to engage in an act of prostitution. (2) An individual who solicits, or who agrees to engage in, or who engages in, an act of prostitution with another person who is 18 years of age or older in exchange for the individual providing compensation, money, or anything of value to the other person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 593 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In re Giannini (1968) set aside convictions under Penal Code 647(a) because the prosecution introduced no evidence of community standards, and equated "lewd or dissolute" with obscenity only for the purpose of judging an allegedly obscene dance performed for an audience.
Leading cases:
- Morrison v. State Board of Education (California Supreme Court 1969, 1 Cal. 3d 214)“…public beach and the teacher was arrested for violation of Penal Code section 647, subdivision (a), and convicted, on his…”
- People v. Laiwa (California Supreme Court 1983, 34 Cal. 3d 711)“…to arrest him for being under the influence of a narcotic. (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f).) [1] He moved, however, to…”
- In Re Cregler (California Supreme Court 1961, 56 Cal. 2d 308)✓A man previously convicted of theft was arrested for standing in a San Francisco bus station under the pre-1961 vagrancy version of section 647. The court rejected his vagueness challenge, reading loiter to require lingering to commit a crime, and denied habeas relief.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), California Landlord-Tenant Recording and Surveillance Laws (2026), California Laws on Recording in Public: What Is Legal (2026)
§ 632In forcecited in 40 of our articles
(a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 267 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kimmel v. Goland (1990) held the section 47(2) litigation privilege does not bar a damages claim under Section 632 for recording confidential conversations without consent. Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc. (2003) held a Section 632 violation is complete the moment the recording is made, whether or not it is disclosed.
Leading cases:
- Rubin v. Green (California Supreme Court 1993, 4 Cal. 4th 1187)“…f telephone conversations with defendants, an offense under Penal Code section 632. We noted that defendants alleged that…”
- Kimmel v. Goland (California Supreme Court 1990, 51 Cal. 3d 202)✓Mobilehome owners secretly taped phone calls with park management in anticipation of suing; the court held the section 47(2) litigation privilege did not bar the cross-complaint for damages under Penal Code section 632, since the injury came from recording, not publication.
- Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (California Supreme Court 1998, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843)✓A TV producer put a wireless microphone on the flight nurse treating a crash victim. No section 632 claim was before the court, but it called section 632 and the intrusion tort laws of general applicability and said the press may not eavesdrop in violation of section 632.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: California Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 750.539dInstallation, placement, or use of device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing or eavesdropping in private placeIn forcecited in 31 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not do either of the following: (a) Install, place, or use in any private place, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy in that place, any device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in that place. (b) Distribute, disseminate, or transmit for access by any other person a recording, photograph, or visual image the person knows or has reason to know was obtained in violation of this section. (2) This section does not prohibit security monitoring in a residence if conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose. (3) A person who violates or attempts to violate this section is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(a): (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 24 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Lewis v. LeGrow held a bedroom in a private home is a "private place" under MCL 750.539d and that consenting to sex does not consent to being secretly videotaped there, sustaining civil awards. People v. Wilkens affirmed convictions including one under the section for a camera hidden in a shower used by tenants.
Leading cases:
- Lewis v. LeGrow (Michigan Court of Appeals 2003, 258 Mich. App. 175)✓A man hid a video camera in his own bedroom and taped three women having sex with him; the court held the bedroom was a private place under 539d and that consenting to sex did not mean consenting to be taped, so the jury verdicts against him stood.
- People v. Wilkens (Michigan Court of Appeals 2005, 267 Mich. App. 728)“…ne count of eavesdropping through installation of a camera, MCL 750.539d. [1] The trial court sentenced defenda…”
- People v. Waltonen (Michigan Court of Appeals 2007, 272 Mich. App. 678)“…drug house, MCL 333.7405(l)(d); one count of eavesdropping, MCL 750.539d; and four counts of engaging the servic…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Michigan Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules, Statutes, and Penalties (2026), Michigan Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Doctor Visits (2026)
Texas Penal Code
§ 21.15INVASIVE VISUAL RECORDINGIn forcecited in 13 of our articles
(a) In this section: (1) "Female breast" means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola. (2) "Intimate area" means the naked or clothed genitals, pubic area, anus, buttocks, or female breast of a person. (3) "Changing room" means a room or portioned area provided for or primarily used for the changing of clothing and includes dressing rooms, locker rooms, and swimwear changing areas. (3-a) "Place in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy" means a place in which a reasonable person would believe that the person could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that the act of undressing would be photographed or visually recorded by another or that a visual image of the person undressing would be broadcasted or transmitted by another. The term includes a bathroom, bedroom, and changing room. (4) "Promote" has the meaning assigned by Section 43.21.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at statutes.capitol.texas.gov
Cited in 44 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):The Court of Criminal Appeals struck down the 2007 improper photography provision at Penal Code 21.15(b)(1), and Ex parte Shay (2016) set aside a conviction under it. The Legislature re-enacted the section in 2015, and Ex Parte Kamilah a Hamilton (2020) held the current subsection (b)(1) survives strict scrutiny and is not overbroad.
Leading cases:
- Ex Parte Nyabwa (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) 2011, 366 S.W.3d 719)✓Charged with improper photography, Nyabwa attacked section 21.15(b)(1) by pretrial habeas; the court of appeals held the 2007 subsection regulated the photographer's intent rather than speech and was neither overbroad nor vague. Ex parte Thompson struck it down in 2014.
- Ex parte Shay (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas 2016, 507 S.W.3d 731)✓Shay pleaded guilty under section 21.15(b)(1) before Ex parte Thompson struck that subsection down; the Court of Criminal Appeals held his favorable plea bargain did not estop habeas relief, set aside the conviction, and remanded to dismiss the indictment.
- Ex Parte Kamilah a Hamilton (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) 2020)✓Indicted under the 2015 version of section 21.15(b)(1) for broadcasting an image of a complainant's intimate area, Hamilton claimed facial overbreadth; the court held the rewritten subsection survives strict scrutiny, is not overbroad, and affirmed denial of relief.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Texas Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Privacy, and Rights, Texas Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Exceptions, Texas School Recording Laws: Classrooms, Cameras, and Student Privacy
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Connecticut OLR Report 2022-R-0234 - Landlords Installing Security Cameras(cga.ct.gov).gov
- Florida Statutes 810.145 - Video Voyeurism(flsenate.gov).gov
- New York Penal Law 250.45 - Unlawful Surveillance Second Degree(nysenate.gov).gov
- California Penal Code 647(j) - Invasion of Privacy(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California Penal Code 632 - Eavesdropping(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Michigan Compiled Laws 750.539d - Device in a Private Place(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Texas Penal Code 21.15 - Invasive Visual Recording(statutes.capitol.texas.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(govinfo.gov).gov
- Airbnb - Update on Security Camera Policy (indoor camera ban, 2024)(news.airbnb.com)