Michigan
Michigan Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 12 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Michigan regulates surveillance cameras under MCL 750.539d, which prohibits placing recording devices in any private place without consent but expressly permits residential security monitoring by homeowners. Cameras aimed at public-facing areas are generally lawful, while cameras capturing spaces where people hold a reasonable expectation of privacy are not.
Overview of Michigan Surveillance Camera Laws
Michigan does not have a single comprehensive surveillance camera statute. Instead, the state regulates surveillance through a series of provisions within Chapter LXXXII of the Michigan Penal Code (MCL 750.539a through 750.539l), which covers eavesdropping, surveillance, and privacy violations.
The central principle across all of these statutes is the concept of a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Surveillance cameras are generally legal in Michigan when used in locations where people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as public sidewalks, driveways, and front yards. Recording becomes illegal when cameras are placed to capture images or audio in private spaces without consent.
Michigan defines a "private place" under MCL 750.539a as a location where a person "may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance." This definition does not include places where the public or a substantial portion of the public has access.
The same statute defines "surveillance" as secretly observing another person's activities "for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person observed." This means that intent matters when determining whether surveillance crosses the legal line.
Home Security Camera Laws in Michigan
Michigan law expressly permits homeowners to use security cameras on their own property. MCL 750.539d contains a specific exemption stating that the statute "does not prohibit security monitoring in a residence if conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence."
This exemption has one important limitation: the security monitoring cannot be conducted "for a lewd or lascivious purpose." As long as the camera system is used for legitimate security reasons, homeowners have broad discretion over placement and monitoring.
Where You Can Place Home Security Cameras
You can legally place cameras in the following areas of your property:
- Front door and porch areas for monitoring visitors and package deliveries
- Driveways and garages to record vehicle activity
- Backyards and exterior walls aimed at your own property boundaries
- Common living areas inside your home, such as living rooms, kitchens, and hallways
- Children's play areas for safety monitoring purposes
Where Cameras Are Prohibited
Even within your own home, cameras cannot be placed in certain locations:
- Bathrooms where guests or household members expect privacy
- Guest bedrooms where visitors sleep or change clothes
- Changing areas or any room primarily used for dressing
The key factor is whether someone in that space would reasonably expect to be free from observation. Under MCL 750.539j, it is a felony to surveil, photograph, or record a person in a state of undress when that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Audio Recording and Michigan's Eavesdropping Law
Michigan's audio recording law is one of the most important considerations for anyone installing surveillance cameras with microphones. Under MCL 750.539c, it is a felony to willfully use any device to eavesdrop upon a private conversation without the consent of all parties.
The statute defines "eavesdrop" under MCL 750.539a as overhearing, recording, amplifying, or transmitting "any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse."
All-Party Consent With a Key Exception
While the statute technically requires all-party consent, Michigan courts have created an important distinction. A participant in a conversation may record that conversation without violating the eavesdropping statute because the term "eavesdrop" refers to the private discourse "of others." If you are part of the conversation, you are not overhearing the conversation "of others."
However, the Michigan Supreme Court has not issued a definitive ruling on this question. The safest approach is to assume that all-party consent is required for audio recording.
What This Means for Security Cameras
If your security camera system records audio, it could trigger Michigan's eavesdropping statute. This is particularly important for:
- Doorbell cameras (such as Ring or Nest) that record conversations at your front door
- Indoor cameras with built-in microphones
- Baby monitors that transmit audio
To stay on the right side of the law, consider disabling audio recording on outdoor cameras, or post visible signs notifying visitors that audio and video recording is in use.
Workplace Surveillance Camera Laws
Michigan does not have a specific statute governing workplace video surveillance. Employers rely on the general framework of MCL 750.539d and federal guidelines when installing security cameras.
Where Employers Can Install Cameras
Employers may generally install video cameras in:
- Lobbies, reception areas, and hallways for building security
- Production floors and warehouses for safety and loss prevention
- Parking lots and exterior areas for property protection
- Cash register areas and point-of-sale locations for theft prevention
Where Employers Cannot Install Cameras
Cameras are prohibited in areas where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy:
- Restrooms and locker rooms
- Break rooms with changing facilities
- Private offices if employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as a door that closes)
- Nursing or lactation rooms
Audio Recording at Work
Workplace cameras that record audio present the same legal risks as home cameras. Under Michigan's eavesdropping law, employers cannot record employee conversations without consent from all parties to the conversation. Employers who install cameras with active microphones in the workplace may face both criminal charges and civil lawsuits.
The Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act also restricts what an employer may record. Under MCL 423.508(1), an employer "shall not gather or keep a record of an employee's associations, political activities, publications, or communications of nonemployment activities" unless the employee submits or authorizes the information in writing.
That prohibition carries an express carve-out that matters directly to camera footage: it "shall not apply to activities that occur on the employer's premises or during the employee's working hours with that employer that interfere with the performance of the employee's duties or duties of other employees." So footage of on-premises conduct that disrupts work is not barred by this act, and any record the employer does keep under this section becomes part of the personnel file the employee is entitled to review.
Hidden Camera Laws in Michigan
MCL 750.539d is Michigan's primary hidden camera statute. It prohibits any person from installing, placing, or using 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.
This prohibition applies to both visible and hidden cameras when placed in a "private place" as defined by the statute.
Voyeurism Protections Under MCL 750.539j
MCL 750.539j, enacted in 2004, added enhanced protections specifically targeting voyeurism. This statute makes it illegal to:
- Surveil a person in a state of undress (in underwear or with exposed intimate areas) when that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy
- Photograph or record images of a person in that condition under the same circumstances
- Distribute any materials obtained through such illegal surveillance
First-time surveillance violations under this section carry penalties of up to 2 years in prison and a $2,000 fine. Photography, recording, or distribution violations carry penalties of up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
Nanny Cam Laws in Michigan
Michigan homeowners can legally use nanny cams to monitor caregivers in their home, provided they follow certain rules.
Where Nanny Cams Are Legal
The residential security monitoring exemption under MCL 750.539d allows homeowners to place cameras in common areas of the home, including:
- Living rooms and family rooms
- Kitchens and dining areas
- Playrooms and children's bedrooms (to monitor children, not the caregiver)
- Hallways and entryways
Where Nanny Cams Are Prohibited
Cameras cannot be placed in areas where the caregiver has a reasonable expectation of privacy:
- Bathrooms
- A bedroom or changing area assigned to a live-in caregiver
Audio Recording Considerations
If your nanny cam records audio, you face additional legal risks. Because Michigan's eavesdropping statute generally requires consent from all parties, recording a caregiver's phone conversations or private discussions without their knowledge could violate MCL 750.539c.
The safest approach is to either disable audio recording on your nanny cam or inform the caregiver in advance that audio and video monitoring is in use.
Neighbor Disputes and Security Cameras
Security cameras that capture a neighbor's property can create legal conflicts in Michigan. While there is no state law that specifically prohibits a camera from capturing portions of a neighbor's property in its field of view, the way the camera is used matters.
What Is Generally Permitted
- A camera aimed at your own front yard or driveway that incidentally captures part of a neighbor's property in the background
- A doorbell camera that records people approaching your front door, even if it also captures the sidewalk or street
- Exterior cameras positioned to monitor your own property boundaries
What May Cross the Legal Line
- Deliberately aiming a camera at a neighbor's windows, especially bedroom or bathroom windows
- Using a zoom lens to peer into areas where your neighbor expects privacy
- Constant, targeted monitoring of a neighbor's activities that could constitute harassment or stalking under MCL 750.411h
Resolving Camera Disputes
If you believe a neighbor's camera is invading your privacy, consider these steps:
- Talk to your neighbor and explain your concerns. Many disputes can be resolved by adjusting camera angles.
- Install privacy barriers such as fences, hedges, or window treatments.
- Document the situation by noting camera placement and what areas it monitors.
- Contact local police if you believe the recording violates MCL 750.539d.
- Consult an attorney about pursuing civil remedies. For a camera that records video only, the claim runs under MCL 750.539d together with MCL 750.539i, plus the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion. MCL 750.539h applies only where a conversation was eavesdropped on.
Doorbell Cameras in Michigan
Video doorbell cameras such as Ring and Nest are increasingly popular in Michigan. These devices generally record the area immediately in front of your door, which is not considered a private place under Michigan law.
However, doorbell cameras raise two important concerns:
Audio recording. Most doorbell cameras record audio by default. If the microphone captures private conversations between neighbors or passersby, this could implicate Michigan's eavesdropping statute. Consider disabling audio recording or posting a notice that audio recording is in use.
Condominium and HOA restrictions. Some Michigan condominium associations have adopted rules about doorbell cameras. Michigan's Condominium Act contains no camera-specific provision, but MCL 559.190 sets out the general procedure and voting thresholds for amending a master deed or bylaws, which is how an association would put any camera rule in place. Check your own association's recorded documents rather than assuming a statewide standard exists.
Vehicle Tracking Device Laws
MCL 750.539l prohibits the unauthorized installation or use of tracking devices on motor vehicles. This law, effective August 1, 2010, makes it a misdemeanor to install a tracking device on a vehicle without the owner's or lessee's consent.
Penalties include up to 1 year in prison and a $1,000 fine. The statute also creates civil liability for damages caused by illegal tracking.
Exceptions to the Tracking Device Law
The law permits tracking devices when used for:
- Navigation, weather, or traffic information systems
- Emergency roadside assistance
- Stolen vehicle recovery services
- Vehicle diagnostics by mechanics
- Parental monitoring of vehicles operated by minor children
- Law enforcement officers acting within their official duties
- Licensed professional investigators (with restrictions)
Penalties for Illegal Surveillance in Michigan
Michigan imposes serious criminal penalties for surveillance violations. All of the following offenses are felonies under Michigan law:
| Offense | Statute | Maximum Prison Time | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eavesdropping on private conversations | MCL 750.539c | 2 years | $2,000 |
| Surveillance devices in private places (first offense) | MCL 750.539d | 2 years | $2,000 |
| Surveillance devices in private places (repeat offense) | MCL 750.539d | 5 years | $5,000 |
| Distributing illegally obtained recordings | MCL 750.539d | 5 years | $5,000 |
| Using or divulging illegally obtained information | MCL 750.539e | 2 years | $2,000 |
| Manufacturing or possessing eavesdropping devices | MCL 750.539f | 2 years | $2,000 |
| Voyeurism/surveillance of unclothed person (first offense) | MCL 750.539j | 2 years | $2,000 |
| Recording/distributing images of unclothed person | MCL 750.539j | 5 years | $5,000 |
| Unauthorized vehicle tracking device | MCL 750.539l | 1 year | $1,000 |
Civil Remedies for Surveillance Violations
Michigan offers two different civil routes, and which one applies depends on whether a conversation was captured.
Audio: MCL 750.539h
MCL 750.539h gives "any parties to any conversation upon which eavesdropping is practiced" three forms of relief:
- Injunctive relief. A court of record may issue an order prohibiting further eavesdropping.
- Actual damages. The victim can recover compensation for measurable losses against the person who eavesdropped.
- Punitive damages. A court or jury may award additional damages intended to punish the violator and deter future misconduct.
Note the limit built into that language. Section 539h runs to parties to a conversation, and MCL 750.539a defines "eavesdrop" as capturing "the private discourse of others." A camera that records video with no audio captures no discourse, so it produces no claim under 539h.
Video: MCL 750.539d and MCL 750.539i
For a camera that records images only, the civil claim runs under MCL 750.539d itself. MCL 750.539i expressly contemplates a civil suit, providing that "in any criminal or civil action, proof of the installation in any private place of any device which may be used for the purposes of violating the provisions of this act shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of section 539d."
The Michigan Court of Appeals read the two provisions together in Lewis v LeGrow, 258 Mich App 175 (2003), holding that "Section 539d, together with M.C.L. 750.539i, creates a criminal and civil cause of action for invasion of privacy."
Common-law intrusion upon seclusion
Michigan also recognizes invasion of privacy as a common-law tort, and a claim for intrusion upon seclusion can be brought alongside the statutory claim. This matters most where a camera falls outside the statutory definitions but the intrusion is still highly offensive.
These civil remedies are available in addition to any criminal penalties. A person who has been illegally recorded can pursue both a criminal complaint and a civil lawsuit.
Law Enforcement Exceptions
MCL 750.539g provides several exceptions to Michigan's surveillance and eavesdropping laws:
- Law enforcement officers may conduct eavesdropping or surveillance when performing their official duties, provided it is not otherwise prohibited by law
- Telecommunications employees acting within the scope of their employment
- Public utilities recording customer service requests when a record is required for legitimate business purposes
- Department of Corrections employees conducting routine monitoring of telephone communications in state correctional facilities
Related Michigan Camera and Privacy Laws
- Michigan Recording Laws covers the consent rule that governs camera audio in Michigan.
- Michigan Security Camera Recording Rules explains the recording-law side of camera use.
- Michigan Biometric Privacy Laws addresses facial recognition and biometric data.
- Michigan Ring Doorbell Laws covers video doorbell rules in Michigan.
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
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I install security cameras on my own property in Michigan?
Yes. Michigan law under MCL 750.539d explicitly allows security monitoring in a residence when conducted by the owner or principal occupant. You can place cameras on your porch, driveway, garage, backyard, and in common areas inside your home such as living rooms and kitchens. Cameras cannot be placed in bathrooms, guest bedrooms, or other areas where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The residential security exemption does not apply if the cameras are used for a lewd or lascivious purpose.
Is it legal to record audio with a security camera in Michigan?
Michigan's eavesdropping statute (MCL 750.539c) makes it a felony to record a private conversation without the consent of all parties. If your security camera records audio, you risk violating this law. This applies to doorbell cameras, indoor cameras with microphones, and baby monitors. The safest approach is to disable audio recording on your cameras or post visible signs notifying visitors and household members that audio recording is in use.
Are nanny cams legal in Michigan?
Nanny cams are legal in common areas of your Michigan home, including living rooms, kitchens, and playrooms. The residential security monitoring exemption under MCL 750.539d covers this use. However, you cannot place a nanny cam in a bathroom or a private bedroom used by the caregiver. If the nanny cam records audio, you should inform the caregiver in advance, because Michigan's eavesdropping law generally requires consent from all parties to a recorded conversation.
Can my neighbor point a security camera at my house in Michigan?
A neighbor's camera that incidentally captures part of your property while monitoring their own front yard or driveway is generally legal. However, deliberately aiming a camera at your windows, especially into bedrooms or bathrooms, could violate MCL 750.539d. If you believe a neighbor's camera is targeting private areas of your home, you can ask them to adjust the camera angle, install privacy barriers, contact local police, or consult an attorney. For a camera that captures video only, the civil claim runs under MCL 750.539d together with MCL 750.539i, plus the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion. MCL 750.539h is limited to parties to a conversation that was eavesdropped on, so it does not reach a silent camera.
What are the penalties for illegal surveillance in Michigan?
Illegal surveillance in Michigan is a felony. A first offense under MCL 750.539d carries up to 2 years in prison and a $2,000 fine. Repeat offenders face up to 5 years and $5,000. Distributing illegally obtained recordings is also punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Eavesdropping on private conversations under MCL 750.539c carries up to 2 years in prison and a $2,000 fine. Victims can also pursue civil remedies. MCL 750.539h gives a party to an eavesdropped conversation actual damages, punitive damages, and injunctive relief. Where the violation is video only, the civil claim runs under MCL 750.539d together with MCL 750.539i, plus the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion.
Updates
Corrected the civil-remedy guidance: MCL 750.539h reaches only eavesdropped conversations, so the page now points video-only claims to MCL 750.539d with MCL 750.539i and common-law intrusion upon seclusion, drops an unsupported camera-rule claim about MCL 559.190, and adds the Bullard-Plawecki workplace carve-out.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; 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.
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 750.539dInstallation, placement, or use of device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing or eavesdropping in private placeIn forcecited in 32 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 opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 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.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- 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 Recording Laws (2026): Consent Rules and Participant Exception, Michigan Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules, Statutes, and Penalties (2026)
§ 750.539jSurveillance of or distribution, dissemination, or transmission of recording, photograph, or visual image of individual having reasonable expectation of privacy; prohibited conduct; violation as felony; penalty; exceptions; "surveil" definedIn forcecited in 20 of our articles
(1) A person shall not do any of the following: (a) Surveil another individual who is clad only in his or her undergarments, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (b) Photograph, or otherwise capture or record, the visual image of the undergarments worn by another individual, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (c) 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) 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 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 17 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts have applied MCL 750.539j to hidden cameras. In People of Michigan v. Jeffrey Thomas Mazur (2015) the Court of Appeals held the statute does not require that a defendant view the recorded material, and that its residential security-monitoring exception does not cover a camera used for a lewd or lascivious purpose.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- In Re L-S Morehead Minor (Michigan Court of Appeals 2026)“…e, was arrested for felony surveilling an unclothed person, MCL 750.539j(1)(a). The trial court authori…”
- In Re K N Klemkow Minor (Michigan Court of Appeals 2024)“…520g(2), and two counts of surveilling an unclothed person, MCL 750.539j. Respondent was arraigned on the crimin…”
- People of Michigan v. Cora Ladane Lymon (Michigan Supreme Court 2024)“…ither naked or clad in undergarments, MCL 28.722(r)(vi) and MCL 750.539j. These offenses all involve a sexual c…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), Michigan Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Tenant Rights (2026), Michigan Security Camera Laws: Rules for Homes, Businesses, and Neighbors (2026)
§ 750.539cEavesdropping upon private conversationIn forcecited in 44 of our articles
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 32 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts read MCL 750.539c to reach third-party eavesdropping only. Sullivan v. Gray (1982) held the statutory phrase "private discourse of others" excludes recording by a participant in the conversation; People v. Lucas (1991) held an officer who answered an arrestee's ringing car phone did not violate the section.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Lucas (Michigan Court of Appeals 1991, 188 Mich. App. 554)✓Police answering the arrested defendant's ringing car phone took drug-purchase calls and testified to them; the court held the officer was not an eavesdropper because there was no private discourse between the sender and some other receiver, so MCL 750.539c was not violated.
- Sullivan v. Gray (Michigan Court of Appeals 1982, 117 Mich. App. 476)✓A party to a phone call about a failed car dealership sale secretly taped it and the transcript was used in later litigation; reading the statute to reach only the private discourse of others, the court held participant recording is not eavesdropping under MCL 750.539c.
- People v. Warner (Michigan Supreme Court 1977, 401 Mich. 186)✓A motel switchboard operator deliberately listened in on a guest's call and reported it to police; the court held her willful eavesdropping violated MCL 750.539c, but the defendant, not shown to be a party to the call, had no standing to suppress the resulting evidence.
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), Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026), Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026)
§ 750.539aDefinitionsIn forcecited in 32 of our articles
As used in sections 539a to 539i: (1) "Private place" means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access. (2) "Eavesdrop" or "eavesdropping" means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse. Neither this definition or any other provision of this act shall modify or affect any law or regulation concerning interception, divulgence or recording of messages transmitted by communications common carriers. (3) "Surveillance" means to secretly observe the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person observed. (4) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation or association.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 26 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lewis v. LeGrow (Michigan Court of Appeals 2003, 258 Mich. App. 175)“…such unauthorized installation, is guilty of a felony.... MCL 750.539a provides the definitions of phrases use…”
- People v. Stone (Michigan Supreme Court 2001, 463 Mich. 558)“…permission of all persons engaged in the discourse.” MCL 750.539a(2); MSA 28.807(1)(2). In…”
- People v. Lucas (Michigan Court of Appeals 1991, 188 Mich. App. 554)“…e Commander Turner, in answering the mobile phone, violated MCL 750.539a et seq.; MSA 28.807(1)…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Dashcam Laws: Windshield Rules, Audio Recording, and Legal Use (2026), Michigan Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for Landlines, Cell Phones, and VoIP (2026), Michigan Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Legal Limits (2026)
§ 750.539hCivil remediesIn forcecited in 23 of our articles
Any parties to any conversation upon which eavesdropping is practiced contrary to this act shall be entitled to the following civil remedies: (a) An injunction by a court of record prohibiting further eavesdropping. (b) All actual damages against the person who eavesdrops. (c) Punitive damages as determined by the court or by a jury.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- McAuley v. General Motors Corp. (Michigan Supreme Court 1998, 457 Mich. 513)“…MSA 4.1801(10)(7), MCL 600.2911(2)(b); MSA 27A.2911(2)(b), MCL 750.539h(c); MSA 28.807(8)(c). In additio…”
- Eide v. Kelsey-Hayes Co. (Michigan Supreme Court 1988, 431 Mich. 26)“…violation); MCL 600.2911; MSA 27A.2911 (libel or slander); MCL 750.539h; MSA 28.807(8) (eavesdropping, allowing…”
- Anzaldua v. Band (Michigan Supreme Court 1998, 457 Mich. 530)“…this act, the court or jury who shall try the same); and MCL 750.539h(c); MSA 28.807(8)(c) (any party to a co…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Video Recording Laws: Surveillance Rules, Consent, and Penalties (2026), Michigan Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: MCL 750.539j Penalties and Protections (2026), Michigan AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
§ 750.539eUse or divulgence of information unlawfully obtainedIn forcecited in 12 of our articles
Any person who uses or divulges any information which he knows or reasonably should know was obtained in violation of sections 539b, 539c or 539d is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in a state prison not more than 2 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Warner (Michigan Supreme Court 1977, 401 Mich. 186)“…Auslander overheard `I've got drugs' accidentally and that MCLA 750.539e; MSA 28.807(5) did not bar the admissio…”
- Dickerson v. Raphael (Michigan Court of Appeals 1997, 222 Mich. App. 185)“…ore than 2 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00. [MCL 750.539e; MSA 28.807(5).] Additionally, M…”
- People v. Livingston (Michigan Court of Appeals 1975, 64 Mich. App. 247)“…sections 539b, 539c or 539d is guilty of a felony * * * .” MCLA 750.539e; MSA 28.807(5). "This act shall…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
§ 750.539fUnlawful manufacture, possession or transfer of eavesdropping devicesIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
Any person who manufactures, possesses or transfers to another any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus designed or commonly used for eavesdropping with the intent to unlawfully use or employ or allow the same to be so used or employed for eavesdropping, and knowing the same is intended to be so used, is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in a state prison not more than 2 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1993
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- In Re Seitz (Michigan Supreme Court 1993, 441 Mich. 590)“…the eavesdropping statutes, MCL 750.539c; MSA 28.807(3) and MCL 750.539f; MSA 28.807(6), by installing a telepho…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.539gExceptionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
Sections 539a to 539f do not prohibit any of the following: (a) Eavesdropping or surveillance not otherwise prohibited by law by a peace officer of this state or of the federal government, or the officer's agent, while in the performance of the officer's duties. (b) Hearing a communication transmitted by common carrier facilities by an employee of a communications common carrier when acting in the course of his or her employment. (c) The recording by a public utility of telephone communications to it requesting service or registering a complaint by a customer, if a record of the communications is required for legitimate business purposes and the agents, servants, and employees of the public utility are aware of the practice or surveillance by an employee safeguarding property owned by, or in custody of, his or her employer on his or her employer's property. (d) The routine monitoring, including recording, by employees of the department of corrections of telephone communications on telephones available for use by prisoners in state correctional facilities, if the monitoring is conducted in the manner prescribed by section 70 of Act No.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Stone (Michigan Supreme Court 2001, 463 Mich. 558)“…forcement personnel acting within their lawful authority. MCL 750.539g(a); MSA 28.807(7)(a). Because of thes…”
- People v. Collins (Michigan Supreme Court 1991, 438 Mich. 8)“…federal government while in the performance of his duties.” MCL 750.539g(a); MSA 28.807(7)(a). When the statut…”
- People v. Mattison (Michigan Court of Appeals 1970, 26 Mich. App. 453)“…tion “without the consent of all parties thereto.” However, MCLA § 750.539g (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 28.807[7]) li…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.539lTracking device; placement or installment on motor vehicle without consent; violation as misdemeanor; penalty; exemptions; inapplicability of subsection (2)(j); liability for damages; definitionsIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
(1) A person who does any of the following is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both: (a) Installs or places a tracking device, or causes a tracking device to be installed or placed, in or on a motor vehicle without the knowledge and consent of the owner of that motor vehicle or, if the motor vehicle is leased, the lessee of that motor vehicle. (b) Tracks the location of a motor vehicle with a tracking device without the knowledge and consent of either the owner or the authorized operator of that motor vehicle or, if the motor vehicle is leased, either the lessee or the authorized operator of that motor vehicle. (c) While being the restrained party under a protective order, tracks the location of a motor vehicle operated or occupied by an individual protected under that order with a tracking device.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2016
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People of Michigan v. Michael Joseph Ouellette (Michigan Court of Appeals 2016)“…rized installation of a tracking device on a motor vehicle, MCL 750.539l. Defendant was sentenced, as a third ha…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Employee Monitoring Laws (2026): Social Media, GPS & Cameras, GPS Tracking Laws by State: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026), Michigan GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
§ 750.411hStalking; definitions; violation as misdemeanor; penalties; probation; conditions; evidence of continued conduct as rebuttable presumption; additional penaltiesIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
(1) As used in this section: (a) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of 2 or more separate noncontinuous acts evidencing a continuity of purpose. (b) "Dating relationship" means frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional involvement. This term does not include a casual relationship or an ordinary fraternization between 2 individuals in a business or social context. (c) "Emotional distress" means significant mental suffering or distress that may, but does not necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling. (d) "Harassment" means conduct directed toward a victim that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact that would cause a reasonable individual to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 122 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- McNEILL-MARKS v. MIDMICHIGAN MEDICAL CENTER-GRATIOT (Michigan Court of Appeals 2016, 316 Mich. App. 1)“…n from “stalking” plaintiff, as that term is “defined under MCL 750.411h and MCL 750.411i, which includes but is…”
- Hayford v. Hayford (Michigan Court of Appeals 2008, 279 Mich. App. 324)“…ion 411h or 411i of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328 , MCL 750.411h and 750.411Í. (j) Any other spec…”
- Nastal v. Henderson & Associates Investigations, Inc (Michigan Supreme Court 2005, 471 Mich. 712)“…that serves a legitimate purpose.” MCL 750.411h(1)(c). The circuit court conclud…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Laws on Recording in Public: First Amendment Rights and Limits (2026), Michigan Drone Laws (2026): Privacy Statute, Preemption, and Warrants, Michigan Restraining Order Laws (2026): How to Get a Personal Protection Order
§ 559.190Amendment of condominium documents; consent; void provision superseded by subsection (2); reservation of right to amend; notice of proposed amendments; costs and expenses; master deed amendment; affirmative voteIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) The condominium documents may be amended without the consent of co-owners or mortgagees if the amendment does not materially alter or change the rights of a co-owner or mortgagee and if the condominium documents contain a reservation of the right to amend for that purpose to the developer or the association of co-owners. An amendment that does not materially change the rights of a co-owner or mortgagee includes, but is not limited to, a modification of the types and sizes of unsold condominium units and their appurtenant limited common elements. (2) Except as provided in this section, the master deed, bylaws, and condominium subdivision plan may be amended, even if the amendment will materially alter or change the rights of the co-owners or mortgagees, with the consent of not less than 2/3 of the votes of the co-owners and mortgagees. A mortgagee shall have 1 vote for each mortgage held.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Highfield Beach at Lake Michigan v. Scott E Sanderson (Michigan Court of Appeals 2020)“…ess than 2/3 of the votes of the co-owners and mortgagees.” MCL 559.190(2). But MCL 559.190(2) is tempered by M…”
- Walden Hills II Condo Assoc v. Walden Hills Condo Assoc (Michigan Court of Appeals 2025)“…and subsequent amendment without approval of the co-owners. MCL 559.190(1) provides that condominium documents…”
- Kenneth Rudisel v. Torchport Airpark LLC (Michigan Court of Appeals 2024)“…appending to VNI’s motion and plaintiffs’ answer. Moreover, MCL 559.190(2) expressly provides that “the master…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 423.508Gathering or keeping certain information prohibited; exceptions; information as part of personnel recordIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) An employer shall not gather or keep a record of an employee's associations, political activities, publications, or communications of nonemployment activities, except if the information is submitted in writing by or authorized to be kept or gathered, in writing, by the employee to the employer. This prohibition on records shall not apply to the activities that occur on the employer's premises or during the employee's working hours with that employer that interfere with the performance of the employee's duties or duties of other employees. (2) A record which is kept by the employer as permitted under this section shall be part of the personnel record.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Cullen v. St. Ignace, City of (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2023)“…e personnel record. Mich. Comp. Laws § 423.508. Plaintiffs argue that the records rel…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.539iProof of installation of device as prima facie evidence of violationIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
In any criminal or civil action, proof of the installation in any private place of any device which may be used for the purposes of violating the provisions of this act shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of section 539d.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Explore the law
The laws cited above reference these related sections in their own text:
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.2950 — Personal protection order; restraining or enjoining spouse, former spouse, individual with child in common, individual in dating relationship, or person residing or having resided in same household from certain conduct; respondent required to carry concealed weapon; omitting address of residence from documents; issuance, contents, effectiveness, duration, and service of personal protection order; entering order into law enforcement information network; notice; failure to comply with order; false statement to court; enforcement; respondent less than 18 years of age; ownership interest in animal; definitions view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.2950a — Personal protection order restraining or enjoining individual from engaging in conduct prohibited under MCL 750.411h, 750.411i, or 750.411s; facts alleging stalking; conduct; respondent required to carry concealed weapon; omitting address of residence from documents; reasons for issuing or refusing to grant order; mutual order prohibited; effectiveness, issuance, contents, and duration of order; duties of court clerk; entering order into L.E.I.N.; service; notice to law enforcement agency; enforcement; refusal or failure to comply; false statement to court; purchase or possession of firearm; person less than 18 years ; issuance to prisoner prohibited; definitions view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.8321 — Civil process; service view in our statute record · read at the official source
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Sources and References
- MCL 750.539a: Definitions - Eavesdropping, Private Place, Surveillance(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539c: Eavesdropping on Private Conversations(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539d: Installation of Surveillance Devices in Private Places(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539e: Use or Divulgence of Illegally Obtained Information(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539f: Manufacture, Possession, or Transfer of Eavesdropping Devices(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539g: Exceptions to Eavesdropping and Surveillance Prohibitions(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539h: Civil Remedies for Eavesdropping Violations(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539j: Surveillance and Recording of Unclothed Persons(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539l: Unauthorized Vehicle Tracking Devices(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 559.190: Condominium Document Amendments(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.411h: Stalking(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539i: Prima Facie Evidence in Criminal or Civil Actions Under Section 539d(legislature.mi.gov)
- MCL 423.508: Bullard-Plawecki Act - Records of Nonemployment Activities and Workplace Carve-Out(legislature.mi.gov)
- Lewis v LeGrow, 258 Mich App 175; 670 NW2d 675 (2003) (MCL 750.539d with MCL 750.539i creates a criminal and civil cause of action for invasion of privacy)(courtlistener.com)