Neighbor Security Camera Laws: Your Privacy Rights
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. · 9 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
A neighbor may generally aim a security camera at areas of your property that are visible from their own land or from public view. The line is crossed when the camera reaches into a space where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a window, a bathroom, or a fenced yard, or when it records audio of your conversations.
Jurisdiction scope: This page explains the national legal framework when a neighbor's camera records your property, organized by the legal theories a recorded homeowner actually relies on. It is general legal information, not legal advice. For the recording-consent rule in a specific state, see that state's recording laws page.
Can a Neighbor Legally Point a Camera at My Property?
In most cases, yes, when the camera captures areas visible from the neighbor's own property or from a public spot like the sidewalk or street. There is no general law against a security camera that happens to include part of your yard, driveway, or front entrance in its field of view. Courts decide privacy questions using the reasonable expectation of privacy test, the framework the Supreme Court set out in Katz v. United States in 1967. Open, street-facing areas carry little expectation of privacy, so recording them is usually lawful.
The picture changes when the camera reaches into a space society treats as private. That is where four distinct legal theories come into play, and a recorded homeowner usually relies on whichever one fits the facts.
The Privacy Line: Voyeurism and Unlawful Surveillance
Most states criminalize using a device to view or record a person in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, often a bedroom, bathroom, or enclosed area where someone might undress. Aiming a camera into a neighbor's window or bathroom can be a felony in many states. New York calls it unlawful surveillance in the second degree, a class E felony. Florida's statute, renamed from video voyeurism to digital voyeurism in 2024, is narrower than the label suggests: it reaches secretly recording a person who is dressing, undressing, or privately exposing the body at a place and time when that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and only for amusement, entertainment, sexual arousal, gratification, or profit, or to degrade, exploit, or abuse. Texas criminalizes invasive visual recording of an intimate area where a person expects privacy. Michigan makes it a crime to install a device to record in any private place without consent.
Florida also writes the ordinary neighbor camera out of the statute directly. Section 810.145(5) does not apply to a security system when a written notice is conspicuously posted on the premises stating that a video surveillance system has been installed for security, or to a video surveillance device installed in such a manner that the presence of the device is clearly and immediately obvious. A visible, posted home security camera is therefore outside the Florida offense even before the dressing-or-undressing elements are reached.
These statutes usually require something more than an outward-facing security camera. Many demand a secret recording, an intimate or private space, or a harassing or sexual purpose. An ordinary doorbell or security camera that simply takes in a slice of the neighborhood typically does not violate them. That is why the strongest complaint is often about audio, not the picture.
Audio Is the Strongest Legal Hook
A camera's microphone is governed by federal and state wiretap law, not just by video rules. The federal Wiretap Act bars intercepting an oral communication spoken with a justified expectation that it will not be intercepted. States can go further. In all-party-consent states such as California, Washington, and Pennsylvania, recording a private conversation that no participant agreed to record can be a crime even if the video is perfectly legal.
Modern cameras like Ring units can capture audio from a surprising distance, so a neighbor's device picking up your patio conversation is the most litigated risk in this area. One caution worth stating plainly: courts split on whether speech loud enough for a passerby to overhear is a protected oral communication at all, so the outcome depends on the jurisdiction and the facts. Treat the audio question as a serious but unsettled hook rather than an automatic violation.
| State | Theory | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| New York | Civil claim for backyard filming to harass; felony unlawful surveillance | Civ. Rights Law 52-a; Penal Law 250.45 |
| California | Treble damages for constructive invasion of privacy; all-party audio | Civ. Code 1708.8; |
| Washington | All-party consent to record a private conversation | |
| Pennsylvania | All-party wiretap felony | 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 5703 |
| Florida | Digital voyeurism (dressing or undressing in a private place); exempts clearly visible and posted security cameras | |
| Michigan | Crime to record in a private place; residential exception | MCL 750.539d |
Nuisance, Harassment, and Civil Privacy Claims
When cameras are used to target, intimidate, or repeatedly monitor a specific neighbor, the conduct can move beyond lawful recording. It may support a private nuisance claim or violate harassment and stalking statutes. New York went further and created a neighbor-specific civil claim: a homeowner can sue someone who affixes a video device on adjoining property to film backyard recreational activities, without consent, with intent to harass, annoy, or alarm. That statute is narrow and applies to backyards rather than front yards, so it should not be read as a general ban on neighbor cameras.
Separate from criminal law, many states recognize the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, an intentional intrusion into private affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. California codifies an enhanced version that allows up to treble damages when a device captures a person engaged in a private, personal, or familial activity on residential property.
What You Can Generally Do
Your options are general, not a prescription for any one situation. Many disputes resolve when you simply ask the neighbor to adjust the angle. You can check whether HOA rules or a local ordinance limit camera placement. You can document exactly what the camera sees. If a camera appears aimed into a private space or is being used to harass, a police report for voyeurism or harassment may be appropriate. Where the conduct fits, a civil privacy or nuisance claim is possible. Because the right path depends on your facts and your state, consult a lawyer licensed where you live.
Watch out: Disabling or limiting a microphone often resolves the real legal problem faster than fighting over the picture. In all-party-consent states, the audio capture is frequently the clearest violation, while the video of a public-facing area may be entirely lawful.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can my neighbor legally point a security camera at my yard?
Usually yes for areas visible from their property or the street. It becomes a problem when the camera captures a space with a reasonable expectation of privacy such as a window, a fenced backyard, or a bathroom, when it records audio in an all-party-consent state, or when it is used to harass.
Is it illegal for a neighbor's camera to record audio of my conversations?
It can be. Audio is governed by wiretap and eavesdropping law. In all-party-consent states like Washington, Pennsylvania, and California, recording a private conversation that no participant agreed to record can be a crime and a civil wrong even when the video is legal. Courts do split on whether easily overheard speech is protected, so the result is jurisdiction-specific.
What can I do if a neighbor's camera is pointed at my window?
General options include asking the neighbor to adjust the angle, checking HOA rules, documenting the field of view, reporting suspected voyeurism or harassment to police, and consulting a lawyer about a civil intrusion claim. This is general information, not advice for a specific situation.
Does a fence give me a reasonable expectation of privacy from cameras?
It strengthens the argument, mostly on the civil side. Enclosed and fenced areas are more likely treated as private than an open front yard, which matters for civil claims such as California Civil Code 1708.8 and New York Civil Rights Law 52-a. Criminal voyeurism statutes are narrower: they generally turn on someone dressing, undressing, or exposing intimate parts in a private place rather than on the fence alone. Intent and exactly what the camera captures still control the outcome.
Are Ring doorbells legal if they record the sidewalk and my house?
Video of public-facing areas is broadly legal nationwide. The recurring legal issue is the always-on microphone capturing conversations, which can implicate all-party-consent wiretap laws when it picks up a neighbor's private conversation. See our Ring doorbell laws pages for state specifics.
Can I sue my neighbor for invasion of privacy over a camera?
Possibly, under intrusion upon seclusion or a state statute. California Civil Code 1708.8 allows up to treble damages, and New York Civil Rights Law 52-a creates a backyard-specific claim. Success turns on the reasonable expectation of privacy, what was captured, and intent.
Updates
Corrected the Florida entry: section 810.145 is now titled digital voyeurism, its elements require secretly recording someone dressing or undressing for an enumerated purpose, and the statute expressly exempts posted and plainly visible security cameras.
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.
California Civil Code
§ 1708.8In forcecited in 9 of our articles
(a) A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the person knowingly enters onto the land or into the airspace above the land of another person without permission or otherwise commits a trespass in order to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person. (b) A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the person attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity, through the use of any device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the device was used. (c) An assault or false imprisonment committed with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff is subject to subdivisions (d), (e), and (h).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 17 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Richardson-Tunnell v. Schools Insurance Program for Employees (2007) held Section 1708.8 creates no exception to Government Code 821.6 immunity for a public entity's investigatory surveillance. Simmons v. Bauer Media Group USA, LLC (2020) let a 1708.8(b) claim over a hidden tracker past an anti-SLAPP motion without reaching its elements.
Leading cases:
- Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc. (California Supreme Court 2009, 47 Cal. 4th 272)“…provisions is on the “intent to capture” a “visual image” (Civ. Code, § 1708.8, subd. (a)), or on the “attempt” to do…”
- Richardson-Tunnell v. Schools Insurance Program for Employees (California Court of Appeal 2007, 69 Cal. Rptr. 3d 176)✓Workers' compensation investigators secretly videotaped an injured teacher at her wedding and honeymoon; the court held Civil Code section 1708.8 creates no exception to the investigatory immunity of Government Code section 821.6, so her claim against the public entities failed.
- Raef v. Appellate Division of the Superior Court (California Court of Appeal 2015, 240 Cal. App. 4th 1112)“…Erwin Chemerinsky explained in relation to another statute (Civ. Code, § 1708.8, which, too, forms part of what is popu…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: California Security Camera and Surveillance Laws: Rules for Home and Business (2026), California Video Recording Laws: Filming, Surveillance, and Consent (2026), California Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections (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
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)
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
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)
Revised Code of Washington
§ 9.73.030Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication—Consent required—Exceptions.In forcecited in 41 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication; (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 221 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Washington courts have policed what counts as a private communication under Sec. 9.73.030: State v. Gunwall (1986) concluded a pen register intercept comes within a private communication transmitted by telephone, while State v. Riley (1993) held a line trap that reveals only the calling number does not record one.
Leading cases:
- State v. Salinas (Washington Supreme Court 1992, 119 Wash. 2d 192)“…alties for divulging a telegram or opening a sealed letter. RCW 9.73.030-.070, making it unlawful to intercept,…”
- State v. Gunwall (Washington Supreme Court 1986, 106 Wash. 2d 54)✓Everett police pulled a suspected cocaine dealer's toll records and put a pen register on her line without valid legal process; the court held a pen register intercept is a private communication transmitted by telephone, installable only under the eavesdropping statutes.
- State v. Brown (Washington Supreme Court 1997, 132 Wash. 2d 529)✓Palm Springs officers secretly recorded a Washington murder suspect's statements after his arrest; the court treated RCW 9.73.090, not 9.73.030, as the provision reaching recordings of arrested persons, and held the Privacy Act did not require suppressing that recording.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Washington Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026)
California Penal Code
§ 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, Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- New York Penal Law 250.45 - Unlawful Surveillance Second Degree(nysenate.gov).gov
- New York Civil Rights Law 52-a - Video Imaging of Residential Premises(nysenate.gov).gov
- California Civil Code 1708.8 - 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
- Florida Statutes 810.145 - Video Voyeurism(flsenate.gov).gov
- Washington RCW 9.73.030 - Consent to Record Private Conversation(app.leg.wa.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
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)(courtlistener.com)