Oregon

Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules

Independently fact-checked Editor-reviewed Law current as of August 22, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 2026Reviewed August 7, 202612 min read

Key Takeaways

1Oregon uses a hybrid rule: phone calls are one-party consent under ORS 165.540(1)(a); in-person oral conversations require all-party notice under ORS 165.540(1)(c).
2The in-person rule requires notice, not signed consent. Every participant must be specifically informed before recording begins, whether the setting is public or private.
3Oregon's all-party notice rule was upheld by the Ninth Circuit en banc 10-2 on January 7, 2025. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 6, 2025: the statute is constitutionally settled.
4Violating ORS 165.540 is a Class A misdemeanor: up to 364 days in jail and a $6,250 fine.
5Civil damages under ORS 133.739 include actual damages (minimum $100 per day or $1,000, whichever is greater), punitive damages, and attorney fees.
6Video voyeurism is a separate offense: Class A misdemeanor under ORS 163.700 (recording intimate areas without consent); Class C felony under ORS 163.701 (recording a nude person without consent, or committing the second-degree offense with a prior conviction for a related offense).

Oregon recording law splits by medium under : telephone and electronic communications require only one-party consent, while in-person oral conversations require specific notice to all participants before recording begins. Violating either rule is a Class A misdemeanor carrying up to 364 days in jail and a $6,250 fine, plus civil liability under ORS 133.739.

Oregon recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
Consent rule (phone calls)	One-party consent ((1)(a))
Consent rule (in-person)	All-party notice required (ORS 165.540(1)(c))
Main statute	ORS 165.540
Criminal penalty	Class A misdemeanor
Max jail	364 days
Max fine	$6,250
Civil remedy	Actual damages (min $100/day or $1,000), punitives, attorney fees (ORS 133.739)
Hidden cameras / voyeurism	(Class A misd.) / (Class C felony: nude recording without consent, or second-degree with prior conviction)
Recording police	Permitted when open, plainly visible, officer performing official duties, in a lawful location (ORS 165.540(5)(b))
Constitutional status	En banc Ninth Circuit upheld ORS 165.540(1)(c); SCOTUS cert denied Oct. 6, 2025

For a deeper look at how these rules work by scenario, see the in-depth guides below.

Recording in-person conversations in Oregon

Oregon over-the-shoulder crop of two people seated across a small table mid-conversation

ORS 165.540(1)(c) prohibits obtaining any part of an in-person oral conversation by means of any device unless all participants are specifically informed that recording is occurring. This is an all-party notice requirement: every person in the conversation must be told before you start recording, not after.

The statute uses "informed," not "consented." A participant who objects after being notified may leave, but the law does not give any individual a veto once proper notice is given. Implied or vague indications are not enough; the notice must be specific.

This rule applies in public and private settings alike. A conversation in a park, a restaurant, or on a sidewalk requires the same notice as one in a living room. The Ninth Circuit's January 2025 en banc ruling confirmed that Oregon's conversational privacy interest extends to public spaces.

Key exceptions to the all-party notice rule:

Unconcealed device at certain public events (ORS 165.540(6)(a)): If you use a clearly visible, unhidden recording device, the notice requirement does not apply at public or semipublic meetings such as government hearings, trials, press conferences, public speeches, rallies, and sporting events; at regularly scheduled classes or seminars; or at private meetings where all participants knew or reasonably should have known recording was occurring.
Felony exception (ORS 165.540(5)(a)): A person may record a conversation during a felony that endangers human life without giving notice. Oregon courts interpret this exception strictly. It does not apply to workplace disputes, neighbor arguments, or landlord-tenant conflicts.
Law enforcement coordination (ORS 165.540(6)(b)): The in-person notice rule does not apply when a person, intending to capture alleged unlawful activity through a video-conferencing program, is a participant or has participant consent, and is either: (A) a law enforcement officer or acting in coordination with one; (B) acting in coordination with an attorney or enforcement/regulatory entity; or (C) reasonably believes the recording may be used as evidence in a judicial or administrative proceeding.
Law enforcement officer as participant (ORS 165.540(5)(b)): You may record a conversation in which a law enforcement officer is a participant if the recording is made openly and in plain view, the conversation is audible by normal hearing, and you are in a place where you may lawfully be.

Note on the video-conferencing exception: ORS 165.540(6)(b) is a narrow, purpose-specific carve-out requiring intent to capture alleged unlawful activity plus one of three qualifying conditions. It is not a general exemption for all recordings made through Zoom or similar platforms. Routine video calls do not fall within this exception.

Recording phone calls in Oregon

Oregon hands typing on a mechanical keyboard from above

Oregon is a one-party consent state for telephone and electronic communications. Under ORS 165.540(1)(a), obtaining a telecommunication is prohibited only if you are not a participant and no participant has consented. If you are on the call, your own consent is sufficient. You do not need to notify the other party.

This means you can record mobile calls, landline calls, and VoIP calls you participate in without telling the other side.

Interstate calls: When you call or receive a call from someone in a stricter state, that state's rules generally apply. A call between Oregon and California, Washington, or another all-party state should be treated under the stricter rule. When in doubt, disclosing at the start of the call eliminates exposure in every jurisdiction. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. 2511 sets a one-party floor that Oregon's phone rule meets.

For a detailed guide to phone call recording, see Oregon Phone Call Recording Laws.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Oregon's audio recording statute (ORS 165.540) does not cover silent video. A security camera that captures only video is generally lawful in public areas and business common spaces, provided it is not placed where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Adding audio to a video recording activates ORS 165.540. A nanny cam or doorbell camera that captures conversations triggers the all-party notice rule for in-person recordings, or the one-party rule if it is capturing a phone call.

Video voyeurism statutes:

(Invasion of Personal Privacy, Second Degree) makes it a Class A misdemeanor to knowingly record another person's intimate areas without consent when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, including in bathrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, under clothing, and similar enclosed spaces.

(Invasion of Personal Privacy, First Degree) elevates the offense to a Class C felony when the recording captures another person in a state of nudity without consent where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, or when the perpetrator commits the second-degree offense with a prior conviction for invasion of personal privacy, public indecency, private indecency, or a sex crime under ORS 163A.005. A Class C felony carries up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $125,000. The court may also designate this as a sex crime requiring registration under ORS 163A.005.

No 2025 or 2026 amendments to ORS 163.700 or ORS 163.701 have been identified.

For detailed guidance, see Oregon Security Camera Laws and Oregon Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws.

Penalties for illegal recording in Oregon

hands typing on a mechanical keyboard from above

Criminal penalties:

Penalty	Maximum
Jail	364 days ()
Fine	$6,250 (ORS 161.635)
Probation	Up to 5 years

Violation of ORS 165.540(1) or (2)(b) is a Class A misdemeanor under subsection (9). Actual sentences depend on the circumstances, prior criminal history, and judicial discretion.

SB 1121 (Or Laws 2025, ch. 417) created a separate Class B misdemeanor for knowingly disclosing another person's personal information without consent and with intent to stalk another person, injure another person, or damage another person's property, where the disclosure in fact causes that stalking, injury, or property damage. The maximum for that adjacent offense is 6 months and a $2,500 fine. It does not amend ORS 165.540.

Civil liability under ORS 133.739:

A person whose communications were willfully intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of the statute may sue for:

Actual damages, but not less than $100 per day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater
Punitive damages at the court's discretion
Reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party (courts may not award fees to a prevailing defendant in a class action)

Good-faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization is a complete defense to civil claims.

Evidentiary bar: Under ORS 41.910, communications intercepted in violation of ORS 165.540 are inadmissible in any Oregon court proceeding.

Recording the police in Oregon

Oregon law expressly permits recording law enforcement under ORS 165.540(5)(b) when four conditions are met: the recording is made while the officer is performing official duties, the recording is made openly and in plain view of the participants, the conversation is audible to the person by normal unaided hearing, and the person is in a place where they may lawfully be.

The First Amendment independently protects the right to record government officials carrying out public duties. The Ninth Circuit has recognized this right, and Oregon's statutory exception aligns with it. Officers cannot lawfully order you to stop recording or seize your device solely because you are recording, as long as you are not physically interfering with police activity.

Oregon's public meetings laws also support recording at government proceedings. ORS 165.540's unconcealed-device exception in (6)(a) has always covered government hearings, trials, and legislative proceedings.

For more detail, see Oregon Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in Oregon

Project Veritas v. Schmidt: constitutional history

Oregon's all-party notice rule was challenged in federal court from 2022 through 2025. In July 2023, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled ORS 165.540(1)(c) unconstitutional as a content-based speech restriction. On January 7, 2025, the full Ninth Circuit sitting en banc reversed that ruling 10-2, holding the statute is content-neutral and survives intermediate scrutiny. The opinion is at 9th Cir. No. 22-35271. On October 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. The statute is constitutionally settled in the Ninth Circuit. The 2021 amendment extending ORS 165.540 to video-conferencing contexts has not been separately tested at the federal appellate level.

Workplace recording and NLRB

Phone calls at work follow the one-party rule. In-person meetings, performance reviews, and break-room conversations require all-party notice. Under NLRB Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), employer no-recording policies are presumptively unlawful if they have a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising NLRA-protected rights, including discussing wages, working conditions, or union organizing. Oregon employers must ensure their policies are narrowly tailored to a legitimate business interest.

Collective bargaining (NLRB GC Memo 25-07)

NLRB Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued GC Memo 25-07 in June 2025, stating that secretly recording collective bargaining sessions is a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith under NLRA sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3). Oregon's ORS 165.540(1)(c) independently prohibits unannounced recording of in-person bargaining sessions. Both layers apply independently.

SB 1121 (2025): adjacent disclosure crime

SB 1121 (Or Laws 2025, ch. 417) did not amend ORS 165.540. It created a new Class B misdemeanor for knowingly disclosing personal information without consent and with intent to stalk or injure the person, or damage their property, where disclosure in fact causes that harm. A person who illegally records someone and then shares the recording to stalk the subject could face exposure under both ORS 165.540 and SB 1121.

Federal overlay: ECPA and FCC

The Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2511) sets a one-party consent floor. Oregon's phone rule meets that floor; Oregon's in-person rule is stricter. A former FCC rule, 47 CFR 64.501, once required telephone companies to give notice before recording customer calls through a verbal announcement, an audible beep tone, or prior written consent, but the FCC removed that rule effective November 20, 2017, and it no longer applies. There is currently no FCC-specific interstate call-recording disclosure rule; private and business call recording is governed by state law and the federal wiretap act's one-party consent floor.

Recent legal developments

January 7, 2025: Ninth Circuit en banc (10-2) upholds ORS 165.540(1)(c) as content-neutral and constitutional under intermediate scrutiny (Project Veritas v. Schmidt, No. 22-35271).
October 6, 2025: U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari; Oregon's all-party notice requirement for in-person conversations is constitutionally final in the Ninth Circuit.
2025: SB 1121 (Or Laws 2025, ch. 417) creates adjacent Class B misdemeanor for harmful disclosure of personal information; does not amend ORS 165.540.
2023: ORS 165.540 amended (c.234, s1) to add subsection (5)(e) regarding Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology device recordings during deployment.

Oregon recording laws in depth

Oregon wooden gavel on a sound block on a judge's bench

By type of recording:

By place or relationship:

More Oregon laws

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Recording laws change and apply differently to each situation. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed Oregon attorney.

More Oregon Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Oregon a one-party or two-party consent state?

Oregon uses a hybrid rule. Telephone and electronic communications are one-party consent under ORS 165.540(1)(a): if you participate in the call, your own consent is enough. In-person oral conversations require all-party notice under ORS 165.540(1)(c): every participant must be specifically informed before recording begins. Oregon is not a standard two-party consent state, nor a standard one-party state.

Can I record a phone call in Oregon without telling the other person?

Yes. Oregon is one-party consent for telephone calls under ORS 165.540(1)(a). As long as you are a participant, you can record without notifying the other party. If you are calling someone in a stricter state such as California or Washington, follow that state's all-party rules instead.

Do I need permission to record an in-person conversation in Oregon?

You must give specific notice. Under ORS 165.540(1)(c), every participant must be told that recording is occurring before you start. The statute requires that participants be 'specifically informed,' not that they consent in writing. This applies in public and private settings. Exceptions include recordings at certain public events with an unconcealed device, recordings during a felony that endangers human life, and law enforcement officer recordings under ORS 165.540(5)(b).

What did the Project Veritas v. Schmidt rulings decide?

In July 2023 a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel struck down ORS 165.540(1)(c) as an unconstitutional content-based restriction. On January 7, 2025, the full Ninth Circuit sitting en banc reversed that decision 10-2, holding the statute is content-neutral and passes intermediate scrutiny. On October 6, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari. Oregon's all-party notice requirement for in-person conversations is constitutionally settled.

What is the penalty for illegal recording in Oregon?

Violating ORS 165.540 is a Class A misdemeanor: up to 364 days in jail and a fine of up to $6,250. Civil plaintiffs may sue under ORS 133.739 for actual damages (minimum $100 per day or $1,000, whichever is greater), punitive damages, and attorney fees. Illegally obtained recordings are also inadmissible in Oregon courts under ORS 41.910.

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in Oregon?

Silent video cameras on your own property are generally lawful. Once a camera captures audio, ORS 165.540 applies. An outdoor camera recording passers-by without notice may violate the all-party notice rule if it captures in-person conversations. Cameras placed in bathrooms, dressing rooms, or other private spaces that capture intimate areas without consent violate ORS 163.700. Recording a person in a state of nudity without consent is a Class C felony under ORS 163.701, as is committing the second-degree offense with a prior conviction for a related offense.

Can I record my boss or coworkers in Oregon?

You can record a phone call with a coworker or boss without telling them, because Oregon is one-party consent for telephone communications. You cannot secretly record an in-person workplace meeting: all participants must be notified before recording begins. Under NLRB Stericycle (372 NLRB No. 113, 2023), employer blanket no-recording policies that chill NLRA-protected activity such as wage discussions or union organizing are presumptively unlawful.

Can I record the police in Oregon?

Yes. ORS 165.540(5)(b) expressly permits recording a law enforcement officer who is a participant in a conversation when the recording is made openly and in plain view, the conversation is audible by normal hearing, and you are in a lawful location. The First Amendment also independently protects the right to record police performing public duties. You must not physically interfere with police activity while recording.

Updates

August 22, 2026

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

August 9, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

August 7, 2026

Corrected the Federal Overlay section: 47 CFR 64.501's telephone-recording notice rule was removed by the FCC effective November 20, 2017 (confirmed the section no longer exists in the current CFR) and is no longer current law; removed the stale Sources entry citing it as a live FCC rule.

August 7, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

June 5, 2026

Reviewed and approved by an editor

June 5, 2026

Restructured for readability: condensed to short paragraphs organized by medium and topic, added at-a-glance table, moved constitutional history and special-contexts material into dedicated subsections. Corrected the video-conferencing exception: ORS 165.540(6)(b) is a narrow purpose-specific carve-out (alleged unlawful activity plus law enforcement/attorney/regulatory coordination or evidentiary intent), not a general platform exemption for all Zoom or Teams calls. Confirmed subsection numbering: (1)(a) one-party phone rule, (1)(c) all-party notice for in-person, (5)(b) law enforcement recording, (6)(a) unconcealed device, (6)(b) video-conferencing/unlawful-activity exception, (9) Class A misdemeanor penalty. Added in-depth subpage index. Refreshed FAQ to 8 questions. All primary-source citations retained.

May 9, 2026

Refresh (audit-and-evolve): Title rewritten from 'Oregon Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties' to 'Oregon Recording Laws: Hybrid Consent, SCOTUS Final, Penalties'; meta description rewritten to lead with hybrid framing and SCOTUS finality. Hybrid rule framing (phone one-party / in-person all-party) front-loaded in intro, summary table, and FAQ. Project Veritas v. Schmidt three-milestone timeline (July 2023 panel, Jan. 7 2025 en banc 10-2, Oct. 6 2025 SCOTUS cert denied) preserved from existing article and promoted to standalone H2 with Oregon DOJ quote added. Open constitutional question on 2021 video-conferencing extension flagged. SB 1121 / Or Laws 2025 ch. 417 sidebar added as adjacent disclosure crime (not an ORS 165.540 amendment). Federal Law Overlay H2 added: 18 U.S.C. 2511, 47 CFR 64.501 (businesses/carriers scope qualified), FCC DA 24-17 AI-voice rule, FCC One-to-One Consent Rule vacatur (Jan. 24 2025; formally eliminated Sept. 2025). Special Contexts H2 added: workplace (NLRB Stericycle 372 NLRB No. 113), collective bargaining (NLRB GC Memo 25-07), healthcare (HIPAA 45 CFR Parts 160/164), education (FERPA 20 U.S.C. 1232g), debt collection (CFPB Reg F). Topic Index H2 added with links to all 12 OR subtopic spokes. Citations expanded from 11 to 17 (added SB 1121, GC Memo 25-07, Stericycle, 47 CFR 64.501, HIPAA). Subsection numbering warnings preserved per dossier critic flags err-02 and err-03 -- no unverified subsection numbers cited.

May 9, 2026

March 23, 2026

Added wearable recording devices section and 2 FAQs

The Law Behind This Article

This article rests on 5 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.

United States Code Title 18

§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 397 of our articles

Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-08-12 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 2,045 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511) · United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297) · Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)

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, Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use

Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 161: General Provisions

§ 161.615Maximum terms of imprisonment for misdemeanorsIn forcecited in 5 of our articles

Sentences for misdemeanors shall be for a definite term. The court shall fix the term of imprisonment within the following maximum limitations: (1) For a Class A misdemeanor, 364 days. (2) For a Class B misdemeanor, 6 months. (3) For a Class C misdemeanor, 30 days. (4) For an unclassified misdemeanor, as provided in the statute defining the crime.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at oregonlegislature.gov

Cited in 77 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025

Leading cases: City of Portland v. Dollarhide (Oregon Supreme Court 1986, 300 Or. 490) · MacCrone v. Edwards Center, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Oregon 1999, 160 Or. App. 91) · State v. Wright (Court of Appeals of Oregon 1983, 63 Or. App. 482)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Oregon Audio Recording Laws: Split Consent Rules for Conversations and Calls, Oregon Phone Call Recording Laws: Split Consent Rules and Penalties, Oregon AI Meeting Recording Laws: Split Consent and Video Conferencing Exception (2026)

Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 163: Offenses Against Persons

§ 163.700Invasion of personal privacy in the second degreeIn forcecited in 11 of our articles

(1) Except as provided in ORS 163.702, a person commits the crime of invasion of personal privacy in the second degree if: (a)(A) For the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the person, the person is in a location to observe another person in a state of nudity without the consent of the other person; and (B) The other person is in a place and circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy; or (b)(A) The person knowingly makes or records a photograph, motion picture, videotape or other visual recording of another person’s intimate area without the consent of the other person; and (B) The person being recorded has a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning the intimate area. (2) As used in this section and ORS 163.701: (a) “Intimate area” means nudity, or undergarments that are being worn by a person and are covered by clothing.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at oregonlegislature.gov

Cited in 16 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023

Leading cases: State v. Parra-Sanchez (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2023, 324 Or. App. 712) · State v. Rodriguez-Ganegar (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2003, 186 Or. App. 530) · State v. Mayes (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2008, 220 Or. App. 385)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Oregon Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Consent, Oregon Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent, Oregon School Recording Laws: Student, Parent, and Teacher Rights

§ 163.701Invasion of personal privacy in the first degreeIn forcecited in 6 of our articles

(1) Except as provided in ORS 163.702, a person commits the crime of invasion of personal privacy in the first degree if: (a)(A) The person knowingly makes or records a photograph, motion picture, videotape or other visual recording of another person in a state of nudity without the consent of the other person; and (B) At the time the visual recording is made or recorded the person being recorded is in a place and circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy; or (b) The person violates ORS 163.700 and, at the time of the offense, has a prior conviction for: (A) Invasion of personal privacy in any degree, public indecency, private indecency or a sex crime as defined in ORS 163A.005; or (B) The statutory counterpart of an offense described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph in another jurisdiction. (2)(a) Invasion of personal privacy in the first degree is a Class C felony. (b) The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission shall classify invasion of personal privacy in the first degree as crime category 6 of the sentencing guidelines grid of the commission.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at oregonlegislature.gov

Cited in 6 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023

Leading cases: State v. Parra-Sanchez (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2023, 324 Or. App. 712) · State v. McQueen (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2020, 307 Or. App. 540) · State v. Murphy (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2022, 319 Or. App. 330)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Oregon Security Camera Laws: Installation, Audio, and Privacy Rules, Oregon Video Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Consent Rules, Oregon Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections

Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 165: Offenses Involving Fraud or Deception

§ 165.540Obtaining contents of communicationsIn forcecited in 18 of our articles

(1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 or 133.726 or subsections (2) to (8) of this section, a person may not: (a) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a telecommunication or a radio communication to which the person is not a participant, by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, unless consent is given by at least one participant. (b) Tamper with the wires, connections, boxes, fuses, circuits, lines or any other equipment or facilities of a telecommunication or radio communication company over which messages are transmitted, with the intent to obtain unlawfully the contents of a telecommunication or radio communication to which the person is not a participant. (c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at oregonlegislature.gov

Cited in 76 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: State v. Klein (Oregon Supreme Court 2012, 352 Or. 302) · North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Oliver (Oregon Supreme Court 1979, 286 Or. 639) · State v. Fleetwood (Oregon Supreme Court 2000, 331 Or. 511)