Massachusetts
Massachusetts Surveillance Camera Laws: Privacy Rules and Penalties
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
Massachusetts regulates surveillance cameras under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, s. 99 and s. 105. Video-only cameras are legal on your own property, but any camera recording audio requires all-party consent, and hidden cameras in private spaces carry felony penalties.
What Massachusetts Law Says About Surveillance Cameras
Massachusetts regulates surveillance cameras through several overlapping statutes rather than a single comprehensive law. The state's approach balances property owners' security interests against strong individual privacy protections, and Massachusetts takes privacy more seriously than most states.
The primary laws governing surveillance cameras include Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99 (the wiretapping and eavesdropping statute), Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 105 (voyeurism and recording of nude persons), and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, Section 1B (the right of privacy).
The central principle across these statutes is clear: video-only recording in non-private areas is generally permitted, but audio recording carries strict all-party consent requirements. Massachusetts is one of the most restrictive states in the country when it comes to recording conversations.
The All-Party Consent Rule (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99)
How the Wiretapping Statute Works
Massachusetts's wiretapping law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99, prohibits the secret interception of wire and oral communications. The statute defines "interception" as the secret hearing, recording, or acquisition of the contents of any wire or oral communication through the use of any intercepting device.
Under this law, "oral communication" means speech, except speech transmitted over the public airwaves by radio or similar device. "Wire communication" covers any communication made through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by wire, cable, or similar connection.
The critical word in the statute is "secret." The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in Commonwealth v. Hyde, 434 Mass. 594 (2001) that the statute prohibits recordings made without the target's "permission or knowledge." This means that if all parties are aware of the recording, it does not violate the statute. Consent does not need to be written or formal; actual knowledge of the recording is sufficient.
What This Means for Surveillance Cameras
Any surveillance camera equipped with a microphone falls under this statute. If your Ring doorbell, Nest camera, Arlo system, or any other security device records audio, you must ensure that everyone whose conversations the device captures has knowledge of the recording.
Posting a visible sign stating that audio and video recording is in progress can satisfy the notice requirement for visitors and passersby. However, the safest approach for outdoor residential cameras is to disable the audio recording feature entirely.
Penalties for Illegal Interception
The penalties under Section 99 are severe. Illegal interception is a felony offense in Massachusetts.
Illegal interception (C.1): A fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment in state prison for up to 5 years, or imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for up to 2.5 years.
Unauthorized disclosure (C.3): Imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for up to 2 years, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.
Possession of interception devices (C.5): Imprisonment in a jail or house of correction for up to 2 years, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.
These penalties apply to private citizens. Law enforcement officers may conduct wiretapping only with a court order and only when investigating designated offenses listed in the statute.
Home Security Cameras in Massachusetts
Legal Requirements for Residential Surveillance
Massachusetts homeowners have broad rights to install video-only security cameras on their own property. Cameras can be placed at entrances, in driveways, along walkways, in garages, and in common living areas without violating state law.
Even inside your own home, cameras cannot be placed in areas where anyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Bathrooms, guest bedrooms where someone is staying, and changing areas are off-limits. This restriction applies regardless of whether you own the property.
If your cameras record audio, you must comply with the all-party consent requirement under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99. Recording conversations inside your own home without the knowledge of all participants violates the wiretapping statute.
Outdoor Camera Placement Rules
Outdoor security cameras pointed at your own property and at public areas like streets and sidewalks are generally legal. Massachusetts law does not require homeowners to post signage for video-only cameras, though visible notices help establish that visitors are aware of the recording.
Issues arise when outdoor cameras capture views of neighboring properties. Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, Section 1B, every person has a "right against unreasonable, substantial or serious interference with his privacy." A camera aimed into a neighbor's windows could violate this statute.
If your camera incidentally captures part of a neighbor's driveway or front yard while monitoring your own property, that is generally acceptable. These are areas visible from public spaces where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists. Deliberately aiming a camera to peer through a neighbor's windows or into their fenced backyard is a different matter entirely.
Neighbor Disputes Over Security Cameras
Common Conflict Points
Disputes between Massachusetts neighbors over surveillance cameras typically involve cameras aimed at a neighbor's property, audio recording that captures conversations on neighboring land, cameras positioned to see inside a neighbor's home, and cameras that record activity in a neighbor's backyard or private outdoor space.
The "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" Standard
Massachusetts courts apply the reasonable expectation of privacy test when evaluating surveillance camera disputes. Areas visible from public spaces, such as a front porch, driveway, or unfenced front yard, carry no reasonable expectation of privacy. A neighbor's camera that captures these areas is unlikely to violate the law.
In contrast, a fenced backyard, the interior of a home, and areas shielded from public view do carry a reasonable expectation of privacy. In Polay v. McMahon, 468 Mass. 379 (2014), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed the dismissal of a Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, Section 1B claim against a neighbor who aimed several cameras at the plaintiffs' house. The ruling turned on more than the camera angle. The plaintiffs alleged that the cameras recorded their home continuously and let the neighbor see into their windows, and that he acted as part of a plan to harass them out of the neighborhood. The court weighed the location of the intrusion, the means used, the frequency and duration, and the purpose behind it, and concluded that the defendant's "alleged motive to harass converts his video surveillance of the interior of the plaintiffs' home into an unreasonable intrusion."
Read the holding narrowly. The court decided only that the plaintiffs had "made out a plausible claim" that survives a motion to dismiss, not that the neighbor was liable. It did not hold that any camera capable of seeing a neighbor's window violates Section 1B. The improper purpose and the continuous recording of the home's interior were both doing work in the result.
Legal Options for Resolving Disputes
If you believe a neighbor's camera invades your privacy, Massachusetts law offers several paths forward.
Start with a direct conversation. Many disputes result from camera angles that the neighbor did not realize were problematic. Asking the neighbor to adjust the camera resolves the majority of these situations.
If informal discussion fails, you can file a civil lawsuit for invasion of privacy under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, Section 1B. The superior court has jurisdiction in equity to enforce this right and to award damages. You must demonstrate that the interference with your privacy was unreasonable, substantial, or serious.
If a neighbor's camera records your private conversations without your knowledge, that may constitute a criminal violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99. You can file a police report, as wiretapping is a felony offense in Massachusetts.
Hidden Cameras and Voyeurism (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 105)
What the Law Prohibits
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 105 specifically targets the use of cameras to capture images of people in states of undress. The statute covers several distinct offenses.
Recording nude or partially nude persons: It is illegal to willfully photograph, videotape, or electronically surveil another person who is nude or partially nude without that person's knowledge and consent, when the recording is done with the intent to secretly conduct or hide the activity. The statute defines "partially nude" as the exposure of the human genitals, buttocks, pubic area, or female breast below the areola.
Recording intimate areas under clothing: The law also prohibits using any device to view, obtain, or record a person's sexual or intimate parts beneath or around their clothing without the person's knowledge or consent. This applies in any situation where a reasonable person would believe those body parts would not be visible to the public.
Electronic surveillance defined: The statute defines "electronically surveil" as viewing, obtaining, or recording a person's visual image by use of a camera, cellular phone, wireless device, computer, television, or any other electronic device.
Penalties for Hidden Camera Offenses
A violation of Section 105 involving adults carries imprisonment in the house of correction for up to 2.5 years, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.
One offense in Section 105 carries a higher maximum, and it is defined by the conduct, not by the age of the victim alone. The third paragraph of subsection (b) covers photographing, videotaping, or electronically surveilling the sexual or other intimate parts of a child under 18 under or around the child's clothing. That offense is punishable by imprisonment in the house of correction for up to 2.5 years, imprisonment in state prison for up to 5 years, or a fine of up to $10,000.
Recording a nude or partially nude person under the first paragraph of subsection (b) carries the same maximums of 2.5 years in the house of correction or a $5,000 fine whether the person recorded is an adult or a minor. The statute attaches no age enhancement to that offense.
Disseminating images obtained through illegal surveillance carries additional penalties of up to 5 years in state prison or a $10,000 fine. Disseminating images of minors can result in up to 10 years in state prison.
Exceptions
Section 105(e) does not apply to a law enforcement officer acting within the scope of the officer's authority under applicable law, or acting under an order or warrant issued by a court. The scope-of-authority prong stands on its own. An officer acting lawfully within that authority does not separately need a court order for the exception to apply.
Section 105(d) does not apply to a merchant that electronically surveils a customer changing room, provided that signage warning customers of the surveillance activity is conspicuously posted at all entrances and in the interior of any changing room surveilled.
That merchant exception is narrower than it looks, and a posted sign does not make a dressing room camera lawful in a clothing store. A separate statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, Section 89, bans the practice outright. No person who owns or operates a retail establishment selling clothing may maintain in a dressing room a two-way mirror, an electronic video camera, or a similar device capable of filming or projecting an image of a person inside the dressing room. That statute contains no signage exception, and a violation is punishable by a fine of $100. Section 105(d) removes only the voyeurism charge under Section 105. It does not override the ch. 93 prohibition.
Workplace Surveillance in Massachusetts
Employer Camera Restrictions
Massachusetts employers can install video surveillance cameras in common work areas such as lobbies, hallways, parking lots, warehouses, retail floors, and other spaces where employees do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Legitimate reasons for workplace camera installation include safety, theft prevention, security, and monitoring productivity.
Cameras cannot be placed in locations where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Massachusetts has no statute that bans workplace cameras room by room, so the limits come from the two laws that do apply. Restrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas are the clearest case: they are where people undress, so a camera there risks capturing a nude or partially nude person under Section 105 and is the strongest candidate for an unreasonable intrusion under Section 1B. Treat those rooms as off-limits.
Break rooms sit in a different position. Section 105 is generally not in play there, so the question is the case-by-case reasonableness test under Section 1B, which weighs the purpose of the camera against the privacy interest it invades. A break-room camera is not automatically unlawful, but it needs a real business justification and clear notice to employees, and it should never capture an area where someone would be changing clothes.
Audio Recording in the Workplace
Because Massachusetts is an all-party consent state, employers cannot record workplace conversations without the knowledge and consent of every person whose speech is captured. Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99, any camera system that captures audio in the workplace requires employee consent.
The statute does contain a narrow exception for "an office intercommunication system which is used in the ordinary course of business." This exception covers intercom systems designed for internal communication, not surveillance cameras that happen to record audio.
Notification Best Practices
While Massachusetts does not have a specific statute requiring employers to notify employees about video-only surveillance, employers should inform employees about camera placement as a best practice. A written workplace monitoring policy, disclosed to employees at hiring and posted in visible locations, reduces the risk of privacy claims under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, Section 1B.
Employers should include camera monitoring policies in employee handbooks and have employees acknowledge the policy in writing. Visible signage in monitored areas provides additional protection.
Union Activity Protections
Federal law restricts the use of surveillance cameras to monitor union organizing activities. Under 29 U.S.C. Section 158, employers cannot photograph or videotape employees engaged in peaceful union or other protected concerted activities. Using security cameras to monitor union meetings, organizing conversations, or picket lines violates the National Labor Relations Act.
Nanny Cams in Massachusetts
When Nanny Cams Are Legal
Video-only nanny cams are legal in Massachusetts. You can place hidden cameras in common areas of your home, including the living room, kitchen, playroom, hallways, and nursery, to monitor a caregiver without informing them.
The legality changes when audio enters the picture. Because Massachusetts requires all-party consent for audio recording under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99, a nanny cam that records sound without the caregiver's knowledge violates the wiretapping statute. This is a felony offense carrying up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
If you want to use a nanny cam with audio capabilities, you must inform the caregiver and obtain their consent. The best approach is to disclose the recording in writing and have the caregiver sign an acknowledgment.
Where Nanny Cams Cannot Be Placed
Even in your own home, you cannot place cameras in areas where a caregiver has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If you employ a live-in nanny, you cannot place cameras in the room where they sleep. Bathrooms are always off-limits regardless of the purpose of the camera.
Placing a hidden camera in a space where someone undresses violates Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 105, and can result in criminal charges separate from any wiretapping violations.
Admissibility of Nanny Cam Footage
This is an important practical consideration. If your nanny cam captured audio without the caregiver's consent, that footage may be inadmissible in court under Massachusetts law. Even if the footage documented abuse or neglect, a court could exclude it because it was obtained through illegal surveillance.
To protect the admissibility of your footage, keep nanny cams set to video-only mode. If you need audio recording, obtain written consent from the caregiver before the recording begins.
Ring Doorbells and Smart Cameras
Legal Status of Doorbell Cameras
Ring doorbells and similar smart cameras are generally legal in Massachusetts. The area immediately outside your front door is not a place where visitors have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so video recording of anyone who approaches your door is permitted.
Two recurring legal issues arise with doorbell cameras in Massachusetts.
Audio recording is the primary concern. Most Ring, Nest, and Arlo doorbell cameras record audio by default. Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99, secretly recording conversations at your door without the speakers' knowledge violates the all-party consent requirement. Unlike some states, Massachusetts does not distinguish between "confidential" and "non-confidential" conversations. The statute covers all oral communications.
Neighbor privacy is the second common issue. If your doorbell camera captures views into a neighbor's windows or private spaces, they may have grounds for a privacy claim under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, Section 1B.
Reducing Legal Risk with Smart Cameras
To minimize legal exposure with doorbell cameras and other smart devices in Massachusetts, consider disabling audio recording on all outdoor cameras. Post visible signage stating that video and audio recording is in progress. Adjust camera angles to focus on your own property rather than neighboring homes.
Because Massachusetts's wiretapping statute is broader than those in many other states, the safest approach is to turn off microphones on any outdoor camera. This eliminates the risk of accidentally capturing a conversation without consent.
Condominium and HOA Camera Rules
Installing Cameras in Common Areas
Massachusetts condominiums are governed by Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183A, the Condominium Act. Installing a new security camera system in common areas typically qualifies as an "improvement" to common areas and facilities, which requires a vote of the unit owners.
Under the Condominium Act, if 50% or more but less than 75% of unit owners approve the improvement, only those owners who agreed to the installation bear the cost. If 75% or more of unit owners approve, the cost can be assessed to all owners as a common expense.
Condominium trustees who have a duty to maintain common areas and protect unit owners from foreseeable criminal activity may argue that security cameras fall within their existing authority. However, the safest approach is to hold a formal vote before installing cameras.
Individual Unit Owner Cameras
Unit owners can install cameras on their own units, such as at their front door, provided the cameras do not invade the privacy of other unit owners. A camera on your door that captures the common hallway is generally acceptable. A camera aimed at a neighboring unit's door or windows could violate both the condominium's governing documents and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, Section 1B.
Condominium governing documents (the Master Deed, Declaration of Trust, and Rules and Regulations) may contain additional restrictions on camera installation. Review your association's rules before installing any surveillance equipment.
Penalties Summary
Massachusetts imposes both criminal and civil penalties for illegal surveillance. Here is a breakdown of the key statutes and their consequences.
| Statute | Offense | Maximum Fine | Maximum Imprisonment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ch. 272, Section 99 (C.1) | Illegal interception | $10,000 | 5 years state prison or 2.5 years jail |
| Ch. 272, Section 99 (C.3) | Unauthorized disclosure | $5,000 | 2 years jail |
| Ch. 272, Section 99 (C.5) | Possession of interception devices | $5,000 | 2 years jail |
| Ch. 272, Section 105(b), first and second paragraphs | Recording a nude or partially nude person; recording intimate parts under clothing | $5,000 | 2.5 years jail |
| Ch. 272, Section 105(b), third paragraph | Recording the intimate parts of a child under 18 under or around clothing | $10,000 | 5 years state prison |
| Ch. 272, Section 105(c) | Disseminating illegally obtained images (10 years if the image is of a child under 18) | $10,000 | 5 years state prison |
| Ch. 93, Section 89 | Camera or two-way mirror in a clothing store dressing room | $100 | N/A (fine only) |
| Ch. 214, Section 1B | Privacy invasion (civil) | Damages awarded by court | N/A (civil remedy) |
In addition to criminal penalties, victims of illegal surveillance can pursue civil claims. Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, Section 1B, the superior court has jurisdiction in equity to enforce privacy rights and to award monetary damages.
Any evidence obtained through illegal surveillance may be inadmissible in Massachusetts courts. This means recordings made in violation of the wiretapping statute cannot be used as evidence, even if they captured important information.
Related Massachusetts Camera and Privacy Laws
- Massachusetts Recording Laws covers the consent rule that governs camera audio in Massachusetts.
- Massachusetts Security Camera Recording Rules explains the recording-law side of camera use.
- Massachusetts Biometric Privacy Laws addresses facial recognition and biometric data.
- Massachusetts Ring Doorbell Laws covers video doorbell rules in Massachusetts.
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 Massachusetts Laws
- Massachusetts Landlord-Tenant Laws
- Massachusetts Data Privacy Laws
- Massachusetts Self-Defense Laws
- Massachusetts Expungement Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Are security cameras legal in Massachusetts?
Yes. Video-only security cameras are legal on your own property in Massachusetts. You can install cameras at entrances, driveways, garages, and common living areas. However, cameras cannot be placed in areas where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as bathrooms or bedrooms. If your cameras record audio, you must comply with the all-party consent requirement under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99, which means everyone whose conversations are captured must have knowledge of the recording.
Can my neighbor point a camera at my property in Massachusetts?
It depends on what the camera captures. A neighbor's camera that incidentally records your driveway, front porch, or other areas visible from public spaces is generally legal. However, a camera deliberately aimed at your windows, fenced backyard, or other private areas may violate Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, Section 1B, which protects against unreasonable, substantial, or serious interference with privacy. If the camera also records audio of your conversations, it may violate the wiretapping statute (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99), which is a felony offense.
Is it legal to use a nanny cam in Massachusetts?
Video-only nanny cams in common areas of your home (living room, kitchen, playroom, hallways) are legal in Massachusetts, even without informing the caregiver. However, nanny cams that record audio without the caregiver's knowledge violate the all-party consent wiretapping law (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99). Cameras also cannot be placed in areas where the caregiver has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a live-in nanny's bedroom or any bathroom.
Can my employer use surveillance cameras at work in Massachusetts?
Employers can install video cameras in common work areas such as lobbies, retail floors, warehouses, and parking lots. Cameras cannot be placed in restrooms, locker rooms, or changing areas. If the cameras capture audio, all employees must consent to the recording under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99. Employers also cannot use cameras to monitor union organizing activities, as this violates federal labor law (29 U.S.C. Section 158).
What are the penalties for illegal surveillance in Massachusetts?
Penalties vary by offense. Illegal wiretapping (secretly recording conversations) under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99 is a felony carrying up to $10,000 in fines and up to 5 years in state prison. Voyeurism (recording someone nude or partially nude) under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 105 carries up to $5,000 in fines and 2.5 years in jail, whether the person recorded is an adult or a minor. A higher maximum of 5 years in state prison or a $10,000 fine applies to a separate offense in the same statute: recording the intimate parts of a child under 18 under or around the child's clothing. Victims can also pursue civil damages under the state privacy act (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, Section 1B).
Updates
Corrected the Section 105 penalty for offenses involving minors, added the separate Massachusetts statute that bans cameras in clothing store dressing rooms outright, restated the law enforcement exception and the Polay v. McMahon privacy holding accurately, and removed an unsupported blanket ban on break room cameras.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; 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.
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 272
§ 105Photographing, videotaping or electronically surveilling partially nude or nude person or the sexual or other intimate parts of a person around the person's clothing; exceptions; punishmentIn forcecited in 11 of our articles
Section 105. (a) As used in this section, the following words shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly requires otherwise: ''Electronically surveils'' or ''electronically surveilled'', to view, obtain or record a person's visual image by the use or aid of a camera, cellular or other wireless communication device, computer, television or other electronic device. ''Partially nude'', the exposure of the human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the top of the areola. ''Sexual or other intimate parts'', human genitals, buttocks, pubic area or female breast below a point immediately above the tip of the areola, whether naked or covered by clothing or undergarments.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Massachusetts courts have applied section 105 to secret imaging. Commonwealth v. Robertson (2014) held section 105(b) as then written did not reach upskirt photography of fully clothed people, which prompted a 2014 amendment, and Commonwealth v. Wassilie (2019) held the unit of prosecution under paragraph one is each victim.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Wassilie (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2019, 482 Mass. 562)✓A man hid a phone in paper towels facing a public unisex toilet and recorded adults and children; the court held the unit of prosecution under section 105(b), first paragraph, is each victim, and that the third paragraph child upskirting language is not unconstitutionally vague.
- Commonwealth v. Robertson (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2014, 467 Mass. 371)✓A man was charged with aiming his phone camera up the skirts of clothed women on an MBTA trolley; the court held section 105(b) reaches only a person nude or partially nude at the time, so the charged upskirting fell outside it, and reversed the denial of his motion to dismiss.
- COMMONWEALTH v. MARKUS COOPER. (Massachusetts Appeals Court 2021, 100 Mass. App. Ct. 345)✓A man pointed a phone camera into a bathroom stall where a woman was urinating, then fled; the court held section 105(b), first paragraph, does not require the Commonwealth to produce the photograph, so the camera sound plus his flight supported the conviction.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Recording Laws (2026): Two-Party Consent Rules, Massachusetts Laws on Recording in Public, Massachusetts Security Camera Laws
§ 99Interception of wire and oral communicationsIn forcecited in 25 of our articles
Section 99. Interception of wire and oral communications.— A. Preamble. The general court finds that organized crime exists within the commonwealth and that the increasing activities of organized crime constitute a grave danger to the public welfare and safety. Organized crime, as it exists in the commonwealth today, consists of a continuing conspiracy among highly organized and disciplined groups to engage in supplying illegal goods and services. In supplying these goods and services organized crime commits unlawful acts and employs brutal and violent tactics. Organized crime is infiltrating legitimate business activities and depriving honest businessmen of the right to make a living. The general court further finds that because organized crime carries on its activities through layers of insulation and behind a wall of secrecy, government has been unsuccessful in curtailing and eliminating it. Normal investigative procedures are not effective in the investigation of illegal acts committed by organized crime.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 271 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Blood (1987) read Section 99 as generally proscribing secret recording of oral communications without all parties' consent, and suppressed under art. 14 a warrantless police recording made with one party's consent. Commonwealth v. Vitello (1975) held Section 99 substantially complies with federal Title III.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Vitello (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1975, 367 Mass. 224)✓In a gaming prosecution built on wiretapped phone calls, the SJC gave chapter 272 section 99 its first full review and held the state wiretap statute substantially complies with federal Title III and that the warrants issued under it met both standards.
- Commonwealth v. Blood (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1987, 400 Mass. 61)✓Police wired an informant who recorded conversations in private homes about a planned break-in; the SJC held the recordings fell within section 99's one-party-consent exception but that article 14 nonetheless required a warrant, and reversed the convictions.
- Commonwealth v. D'Amour (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1999, 428 Mass. 725)✓The SJC upheld a section 99 wiretap of a widow suspected of arranging her husband's murder for insurance money, holding the district attorney's written designation of an assistant satisfied Vitello and that probable cause supported the organized crime connection.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Audio Recording Laws, Massachusetts Dashcam Laws, Massachusetts Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 214
§ 1BRight of privacyIn forcecited in 11 of our articles
Section 1B. A person shall have a right against unreasonable, substantial or serious interference with his privacy. The superior court shall have jurisdiction in equity to enforce such right and in connection therewith to award damages.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 199 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (2005) held that recovery under c. 214, Section 1B requires a disclosure both unreasonable and either substantial or serious, and that publicity on a matter of public concern falls outside it. Cort v. Bristol-Myers Co. (1982) held an attempted intrusion that obtained no information is not actionable.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Madsen v. Erwin (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1985, 395 Mass. 715)✓A Christian Science Monitor writer fired after her employers questioned her about her sexual orientation sued under Section 1B; the court held the privacy count as pleaded did not survive dismissal but let her replead it, since religion clauses do not immunize tortious conduct.
- Ayash v. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2005, 443 Mass. 367)✓A physician won a privacy verdict after her institute leaked confidential peer review material about chemotherapy overdoses to a newspaper; the court vacated it, holding disclosures about her professional conduct in a matter of intense public interest fall outside Section 1B.
- Duarte v. Healy (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1989, 405 Mass. 43)✓Cambridge fire fighter recruits had to give monitored urine samples and Duarte was fired after testing positive for cocaine; the court assumed a Privacy Act violation but held the city manager and fire chief immune for discretionary acts, so the Section 1B claims were dismissed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Video Recording Laws, Massachusetts Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws, Massachusetts Data Privacy Laws: Security Rules & Consumer Rights (2026)
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93
§ 89Dressing room surveillance; penaltyIn force
Section 89. No person who owns or operates a retail establishment selling clothing shall maintain in a dressing room a two-way mirror or electronic video camera or a similar device capable of filming or projecting an image of a person inside such dressing room. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of one hundred dollars.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2005
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Rivera (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 2005, 445 Mass. 119)“…ectronic surveillancing of partially nude or nude persons); G. L. c. 93, § 89 (prohibiting *128 dressing room survei…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 183A § 1 (Definitions)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Sources and References
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99 - Interception of Wire and Oral Communications(malegislature.gov).gov
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 105 - Photographing, Videotaping or Electronically Surveilling Nude Persons(malegislature.gov).gov
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, Section 1B - Right of Privacy(malegislature.gov).gov
- Massachusetts Law About Privacy - Mass.gov(mass.gov).gov
- Massachusetts Law About Employee Privacy - Mass.gov(mass.gov).gov
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 183A - Condominiums(malegislature.gov).gov
- 29 U.S.C. Section 158 - Unfair Labor Practices (Union Activity Protections)(govinfo.gov).gov
- Wiretapping Jury Instructions - Massachusetts Courts(mass.gov).gov
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93, Section 89 - Dressing Room Surveillance; Penalty(malegislature.gov)
- Polay v. McMahon, 468 Mass. 379 (2014) - Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court(courtlistener.com)
- Commonwealth v. Hyde, 434 Mass. 594 (2001) - Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court(courtlistener.com)