New Jersey

New Jersey Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

Independently fact-checked Editor-reviewed Law current as of August 15, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 2026Reviewed September 23, 202614 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 15, 2026. · 17 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

New Jersey Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

Key Takeaways

1New Jersey is a one-party consent state: under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d), any participant in a conversation may record it without telling the other parties, as long as the recording is not made for a criminal, tortious, or other injurious purpose.
2Unauthorized interception under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3 is a third-degree crime carrying 3 to 5 years in prison and a fine up to $15,000.
3Civil damages under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24 include actual damages or a liquidated floor of $100 per day or $1,000 (whichever is higher), plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees.
4Hidden cameras that record intimate parts without consent violate N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9, a third-degree crime carrying 3 to 5 years; observation alone (no recording) is a fourth-degree crime.
5New Jersey enacted P.L.2025, c.40 on April 2, 2025: producing or sharing a deepfake in furtherance of unlawful behavior is a third-degree crime; the statute sets a special fine of up to $30,000 notwithstanding the standard 2C:43-3(b) schedule, with a $1,000 civil floor per violation.
6Recording police in public is protected by Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017), a precedential Third Circuit decision recognizing the First Amendment right to record police carrying out official duties in public.

New Jersey is a one-party consent state for audio recording. Under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d), any participant in a conversation may record it without notifying the other parties, provided the recording is not made for a criminal, tortious, or other injurious purpose. Recording without that consent is a third-degree crime under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3 and creates civil liability under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24.

New Jersey recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
Consent rule	One-party (N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d))
Main statute	N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 through 2A:156A-37 (New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act)
When recording is illegal	Recording a conversation without being a party, or for a criminal/tortious/injurious purpose
Criminal penalty	Third-degree crime: 3 to 5 years prison, fine up to $15,000
Civil penalty	Actual damages or $100/day or $1,000 floor (whichever is higher), plus punitive, plus attorney fees
Hidden cameras	Observation of intimate parts: fourth-degree; recording or disclosing intimate parts: third-degree (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9)
Recording police	Protected by First Amendment under Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017)

For a deeper look at each topic, jump to the in-depth guides section below.

Recording in-person conversations in New Jersey

The core rule comes from the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, codified at N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 through 2A:156A-37. Section 2A:156A-3 makes it a third-degree crime to purposely intercept, disclose, or use any wire, electronic, or oral communication without authorization. Section 2A:156A-4(d) creates the participant exception: a person who is a party to the communication, or who has the prior consent of one party, may record without notifying the others.

The Act's coverage also has a threshold requirement that catches many people off guard: under Section 2A:156A-2(b), it only protects an oral communication where the speaker exhibited an expectation that the communication was not subject to interception, under circumstances that justified that expectation. A conversation with no reasonable expectation of privacy can fall outside the Act entirely, regardless of who is recording it. In Kinsella v. Welch, 362 N.J. Super. 143, 827 A.2d 325 (App. Div. 2003), the Appellate Division held that a television news crew's open, hand-held filming of events in a hospital emergency room did not violate the Wiretap Act, because the recording was visible to anyone present and the circumstances did not support a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The one critical limit is the tortious-purpose carve-out. The participant exception does not apply if the recording is made "for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of this State or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act." That language is broader than the federal version in 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d), which dropped the "other injurious act" phrase when Congress amended the statute in 1986 (Pub. L. 99-508). New Jersey kept it, so a recording made to harass, extort, or defraud someone loses the participant exception even if the recorder was present in the conversation.

The New Jersey Supreme Court confirmed the related supervisory-approval requirement for law-enforcement consensual interceptions in State v. Worthy, 141 N.J. 368, 661 A.2d 1244 (1995). For ordinary citizens, the rule is simpler: be a party, do not record for an unlawful purpose, and you are covered.

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

Recording phone calls in New Jersey

The same one-party rule applies to phone calls. Under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d), a participant in a call may record it without telling the other parties. This covers landlines, cell calls, and VoIP. The audio-only coverage of the Wiretap Act means the consent requirement applies to the audio stream; screen-recording a video call is a separate analysis.

Interstate calls require extra attention. Pennsylvania is a two-party consent state under 18 Pa. C.S.A. 5703, and many New Jersey residents and businesses make cross-border calls daily. The conservative rule is to comply with the stricter state's law: for any call that touches Pennsylvania, obtain the other party's consent before recording. New York and Delaware are one-party states, so NJ-NY and NJ-DE calls follow the same one-party rule.

For a detailed breakdown, see New Jersey Phone Call Recording Laws.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

The Wiretap Act covers only audio (aural) interception. Silent video falls outside it entirely. The Appellate Division confirmed this split in State v. Diaz, 308 N.J. Super. 504, 706 A.2d 264 (App. Div. 1998), a nanny-cam case where hidden-camera footage of a caregiver mistreating a child was admitted after the court held that the video portion does not come within the scope of the Act.

Silent video on your own property in common areas is generally not a Wiretap Act problem. The homeowner is a party to conversations at their front door, so a Ring doorbell or porch camera clears the one-party rule for the audio component. The FTC's 2023 enforcement against Amazon Ring (a $5.8 million settlement over human review of customer footage) is a vendor data-handling issue, not a consent question for the homeowner.

Where things become criminal is N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9, the invasion-of-privacy statute. Under subsection (a), observing someone's intimate parts without consent in a place where a reasonable person would not expect to be observed is a fourth-degree crime (up to 18 months). Under subsection (b), recording or reproducing those images without consent is a third-degree crime (3 to 5 years). Under subsection (c), disclosing the recording is also a third-degree crime, and the last sentence of that subsection authorizes a fine of up to $30,000, notwithstanding the standard third-degree ceiling in N.J.S.A. 2C:43-3(b). Property ownership provides no defense. A camera in a bathroom, guest room, or domestic worker's private quarters violates the statute if it captures intimate parts, even if you own the building.

The Diaz court also recognized vicarious parental consent: a parent acting in good faith and on an objectively reasonable belief that recording is necessary in the best interest of a minor child may consent on the child's behalf for Wiretap Act purposes.

glass-walled conference room with figures behind translucent doors

For more on home and business security cameras, see New Jersey Security Camera Laws and New Jersey Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws.

Penalties for illegal recording in New Jersey

Criminal exposure under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3. Unauthorized interception, disclosure, or use of an intercepted communication is each independently a third-degree crime. Under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(a)(3), a third-degree crime carries 3 to 5 years in prison. The fine ceiling under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-3(b)(1) is $15,000. Under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(e), a first-time third-degree offender benefits from a presumption of non-incarceration, though the court may impose prison if the facts warrant it.

Civil exposure under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24. A victim may sue for (a) actual damages, but not less than $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher; (b) punitive damages; and (c) reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs. Good-faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization is a complete defense, but that defense is practically available only to law enforcement.

Media and third-party disclosure. A person who receives an illegally recorded conversation but played no part in the interception is not automatically liable for publishing it. In Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), a case out of the Third Circuit, which includes New Jersey, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment barred wiretap-act liability for a radio host who broadcast a tape of an illegally intercepted phone call, because he had no role in the interception and the call concerned a matter of public interest. Anyone who directed, assisted with, or knowingly participated in the interception itself remains exposed under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3.

Statute	Conduct	Grade	Prison	Fine
N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3	Unauthorized interception, disclosure, or use (audio)	Third-degree crime	3 to 5 years	Up to $15,000
N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24	Civil claim by victim	Civil	N/A	$100/day or $1,000 floor, plus punitive, plus attorney fees
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(a)	Observing intimate parts without consent	Fourth-degree crime	Up to 18 months	Up to $10,000
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(b)	Recording intimate parts without consent	Third-degree crime	3 to 5 years	Up to $15,000
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(c)	Disclosing intimate-image recording	Third-degree crime	3 to 5 years	Up to $30,000 (2C:14-9(c), notwithstanding 2C:43-3(b))
P.L.2025, c.40 (criminal)	Deepfake in furtherance of unlawful behavior	Third-degree crime	3 to 5 years	Up to $30,000 (special fine notwithstanding 2C:43-3(b))
P.L.2025, c.40 (civil)	Civil claim for depicted person	Civil	N/A	$1,000 liquidated floor per violation, plus punitive, plus attorney fees

stack of sealed white envelopes with a wax seal visible on the top one

Recording the police in New Jersey

New Jersey is in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017), the Third Circuit held that the First Amendment protects the right to record police officers performing their official duties in public. The right is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The officers in the underlying 2012 and 2013 incidents received qualified immunity only because the court could not say the law at that time gave every reasonable officer fair warning that recording public police activity was constitutionally protected.

As a practical matter, a New Jersey officer who arrests or retaliates against someone openly recording police activity in public can face an individual Section 1983 claim. The recorder must not interfere with police operations, must not trespass to get closer, and must comply with a lawful safety-based order to step back. None of those limits authorize seizing the phone or arresting the recorder for the act of recording alone.

State law parallels the federal protection. A public police encounter lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy, so the audio is also covered by the one-party-consent rule when the recorder is a participant. Even a bystander typically cannot be prosecuted under the Wiretap Act for recording an officer in public.

For more, see New Jersey Laws on Recording Police.

New Jersey body-worn camera clipped to the chest of a dark uniform shirt

Special topics in New Jersey

Deepfake law: P.L.2025, c.40

Governor Phil Murphy signed P.L.2025, c.40 (Assembly Bill A3540, companion S2544) on April 2, 2025. Producing or disseminating deceptive audio or visual media in furtherance of unlawful behavior (harassment, extortion, non-consensual intimate imagery, and similar) is a third-degree crime carrying 3 to 5 years. The statute sets a special fine ceiling of up to $30,000, expressly notwithstanding the standard N.J.S.A. 2C:43-3(b)(1) schedule for third-degree crimes. Knowing or reckless sharing alone is a fourth-degree crime. The civil cause of action carries a $1,000 liquidated floor per violation plus punitive damages, attorney fees, and equitable relief. Exemptions cover satire, parody, news reporting, teaching, and research; a safe harbor applies to platforms that inadvertently distribute the content.

Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act overlay

Congress enacted the TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146, 119th Cong.) on May 19, 2025, criminalizing knowing publication without consent of intimate visual depictions of minors and non-consenting adults, including AI-generated deepfakes. The criminal prohibition was effective immediately. Covered platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of victim notice starting May 19, 2026. New Jersey victims have parallel state and federal remedies: the P.L.2025, c.40 civil claim, a criminal referral under that statute and under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(c), and the federal platform takedown demand.

Body-worn cameras and footage access

New Jersey law-enforcement officers in covered patrol assignments must use body-worn cameras under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5 (P.L. 2020, c. 129). Recordings must be retained for at least 180 days, extended to three years for encounters that are the subject of a complaint. AG Directive 2021-5, updated by AG Directive 2022-1, sets the statewide policy framework; AG Directive 2019-4 governs presumptive release of deadly-force or death-in-custody footage.

In Fuster v. Township of Chatham (Jan. 21, 2025), the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered body-cam footage of a father's own complaint to police released under the Open Public Records Act to him and his wife, finding that OPRA contains no explicit exemption for information about an individual who was not arrested or charged (there, the adult relative the complaint accused). The Court ordered release under the specific facts of that case, where the requester was the subject of the video rather than a third party, and left open whether OPRA's exemptions can apply to body-cam video.

Workplace recording: Wiretap Act and NLRA

A New Jersey employee who is a party to a workplace conversation may record it under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d), provided the recording is not for a criminal or tortious purpose. Under NLRB Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), a blanket no-recording policy is presumptively unlawful under the NLRA unless the employer demonstrates a substantial, narrowly tailored business interest. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) treats surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se violation, but that guidance is narrowly limited to the bargaining table.

N.J.S.A. 34:6B-22 (P.L. 2021, c. 449, effective April 18, 2022) requires employers to give written notice before using a GPS tracking device in a vehicle used by the employee. First violation: up to $1,000; subsequent violations: up to $2,500.

Federal law: ECPA and FCC rules

The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2510-2522) sets a one-party-consent floor under 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) that New Jersey tracks. The historic FCC beep-tone rule at 47 C.F.R. 64.501 was removed effective November 20, 2017, and no longer applies. FCC 24-17 (Feb. 2, 2024) clarifies that AI-generated voice in calls is "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA, requiring prior express consent; a participant recording an AI-cloned-voice scam call may do so under both the federal floor and N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d). FCC 24-24 (the One-to-One Consent Rule) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (mandate April 30, 2025), and is not in force in 2026.

Recent legal developments

April 2, 2025: Governor Murphy signed P.L.2025, c.40 (A3540), the New Jersey deepfake law establishing criminal and civil penalties for production and dissemination of deceptive audio or visual media.
January 21, 2025: New Jersey Supreme Court decided Fuster v. Township of Chatham, ordering body-cam footage released under OPRA to the subject of the recording on the facts of that case.
May 19, 2025: Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act signed, adding a parallel federal remedy for non-consensual intimate imagery including deepfakes; platform-compliance deadline May 19, 2026.
November 2025: State Senator Joseph Cryan's two-party-consent proposal reported; did not advance. New Jersey remains one-party.
February 14, 2025: NLRB GC 25-05 rescinded Abruzzo-era policy memos (Stericycle itself unchanged).
June 25, 2025: NLRB GC 25-07 issued, treating surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se NLRA violation.

New Jersey recording laws in depth

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More New Jersey 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 New Jersey attorney.

More New Jersey Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is New Jersey a one-party or two-party consent state?

New Jersey is a one-party consent state. Under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d), if you are a party to the conversation, or if one party has given you consent, you may record without telling the other parties, provided the recording is not made for a criminal, tortious, or other injurious purpose.

Can I record a phone call in New Jersey?

Yes, as a participant. N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d) lets any party to a call record it without notifying the others. For calls crossing into Pennsylvania (a two-party consent state under 18 Pa. C.S.A. 5703), the conservative practice is to get the other party's consent before recording.

What is the penalty for illegal recording in New Jersey?

Unauthorized interception under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3 is a third-degree crime carrying 3 to 5 years in prison and a fine up to $15,000. On the civil side, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24 provides actual damages or a liquidated floor of $100 per day or $1,000 (whichever is higher), plus punitive damages and attorney fees.

Is making or sharing a deepfake illegal in New Jersey?

Yes. New Jersey enacted P.L.2025, c.40 on April 2, 2025. Producing or sharing deceptive audio or visual media in furtherance of unlawful behavior is a third-degree crime (3 to 5 years; up to $30,000 fine under the statute's special penalty provision, notwithstanding the standard third-degree schedule). The Act also creates a civil cause of action with a $1,000 liquidated floor per violation, plus punitive damages, attorney fees, and equitable relief.

Did New Jersey become a two-party consent state?

No. Assembly Bill A1211 and State Senator Joseph Cryan's November 2025 proposal to require all-party consent were introduced but did not advance. New Jersey remains a one-party consent state under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d).

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in New Jersey?

Generally yes for common areas. An outward-facing doorbell camera is lawful because the homeowner is a party to conversations at the front door under the one-party rule. A nanny cam in a common area with vicarious parental consent for a minor child (as recognized in State v. Diaz) is also lawful. Cameras in bathrooms, locker rooms, or a domestic worker's private quarters that capture intimate parts violate N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9 regardless of who owns the property.

Can I record New Jersey police officers in public?

Yes. New Jersey sits in the Third Circuit, which held in Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017), that the First Amendment protects the right to record police performing official duties in public. The right is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. You must not interfere with police operations or trespass, and you must comply with lawful safety-based orders to step back.

Can I record an HR meeting or my boss in New Jersey?

If you are a participant, yes, under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d), provided the recording is not for a criminal or tortious purpose. Your employer may have a no-recording policy, but under NLRB Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), a blanket no-recording rule is presumptively unlawful under the NLRA unless the employer can show a substantial, narrowly tailored business interest.

Updates

September 23, 2026

Corrected the descriptions of Fields v. City of Philadelphia and Fuster v. Township of Chatham to what the courts actually held: Fields recognized the right to record police but did not set a clearly-established date, and Fuster ordered body-cam footage released on the specific facts of that case.

August 26, 2026

Corrected the citation for the $30,000 fine ceiling on disclosing intimate-image recordings: the fine is authorized by N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(c) itself, not by N.J.S.A. 2C:43-3(c) (which sets the $1,000 disorderly persons fine).

August 15, 2026

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

August 8, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

June 5, 2026

Reviewed and approved by an editor

June 5, 2026

Restructured for readability: condensed 8,000-word dense text into short semantic sections (in-person, phone, hidden cameras, penalties, police, special topics). Consolidated deepfake, TAKE IT DOWN Act, body-cam/Fuster, workplace/NLRA, and federal overlay into tight Special Topics subsections. Added at-a-glance table and in-depth links index. Refreshed FAQ (8 questions). Re-verified core facts against primary sources: N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3 third-degree grade confirmed; N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24 liquidated damages ($100/day or $1,000 floor) confirmed; N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9 voyeurism grades confirmed; P.L.2025, c.40 deepfake law April 2, 2025 signing confirmed; Fields v. City of Philadelphia 862 F.3d 353 confirmed. No corrections needed. Zero em-dashes; zero banlist links.

May 9, 2026

Refreshed for 2026. Corrected civil cause of action to N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24 (was incorrectly cited at -10 in older summaries). Added P.L.2025, c.40 (A3540 / S2544), the New Jersey deepfake act signed April 2, 2025 by Governor Murphy. Added Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017) as the controlling Third Circuit record-the-police precedent (clearly established for officers acting after July 7, 2017). Added Fuster v. Township of Chatham (N.J. Sup. Ct. Jan. 21, 2025) on subject-of-recording body-cam footage access. Added body-cam mandate at N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5 (P.L. 2020, c. 129) and AG Directives 2019-4, 2021-5, 2021-9, and 2022-1. Updated FCC 24-24 status to vacated by 11th Cir. IMC v. FCC, mandate April 30, 2025. Removed stale 47 C.F.R. 64.501 reference (rule removed effective November 20, 2017). Added NLRB Stericycle 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025), and GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) workplace overlay. Added TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146, signed May 19, 2025) federal compliance, with platform-compliance deadline of May 19, 2026. Reframed A1211 and Sen. Cryan November 2025 proposals as introduced-not-enacted. Replaced commercial-codifier URLs (Justia) with njleg.state.nj.us, njcourts.gov, and uscode.house.gov. Populated keywords array (was previously empty).

May 9, 2026

Refreshed for 2026. Corrected civil cause of action to N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24 (was incorrectly cited at -10 in older summaries). Added P.L.2025, c.40 (A3540 / S2544), the New Jersey deepfake act signed April 2, 2025 by Governor Murphy. Added Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017) as the controlling Third Circuit record-the-police precedent. Added Fuster v. Township of Chatham (N.J. Sup. Ct. Jan. 21, 2025) on subject-of-recording body-cam footage access. Added body-cam mandate at N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5 (P.L. 2020, c. 129) and AG Directives 2019-4, 2021-5, 2021-9, and 2022-1. Updated FCC 24-24 status to vacated by 11th Cir. IMC v. FCC, mandate April 30, 2025. Removed stale 47 C.F.R. 64.501 reference (rule removed effective November 20, 2017). Added NLRB Stericycle 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025), and GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) workplace overlay. Added TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146, signed May 19, 2025) federal compliance, with platform-compliance deadline of May 19, 2026. Reframed A1211 and Sen. Cryan November 2025 proposals as introduced-not-enacted. Replaced commercial-codifier URLs (Justia) with njleg.state.nj.us, njcourts.gov, and uscode.house.gov.

March 23, 2026

Added wearable recording devices section and 2 FAQs

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.

New Jersey Statutes (Unannotated)

§ 2A:156A-3Interception, disclosure, use of wire, electronic, oral communication; violationIn forcecited in 14 of our articles

3. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this act, any person who: a. Purposely intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication; or b. Purposely discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or c. Purposely uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; shall be guilty of a crime of the third degree. Subsections b. and c. of this section shall not apply to the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, that has become common knowledge or public information.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us

Cited in 35 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

State v. Sugar (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1980, 84 N.J. 1)“…s, or both. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2511 (l)(a); N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3a. The disclosure or use of illegally in…”
State v. Minter (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1989, 116 N.J. 269)“…orbids anyone to intercept any wire or oral communication, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3, and defines "intercept" as "the aural…”
Cacciarelli v. Boniface (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 1999, 325 N.J. Super. 133)“…w Jersey Wire Taping and Electronics and Surveillance Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3 it provides: That any person who a)…”

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

Also relied on in: New Jersey AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), New Jersey Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting, and Evidence Rules, New Jersey Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties

§ 2A:156A-4Lawful interception activities; exceptionsIn forcecited in 6 of our articles

4. It shall not be unlawful under this act for: a. An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent or employee of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire or electronic communication, to intercept, disclose or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us

Cited in 45 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

State v. Minter (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1989, 116 N.J. 269)“…direction of an investigative or law enforcement officer." N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(c). In general, the wiretap law forbids…”
Hornberger v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 2002, 351 N.J. Super. 577)“…se the taping violated the Act. We followed the mandate of N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d), which specifically covers that situ…”
State v. Franklin (Supreme Court of New Jersey 2003, 175 N.J. 456)“…mself and the victim of his sexual assault in violation of N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4 (the Wiretap Act). At the time of the i…”

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

§ 2A:156A-24Civil action for damages, attorney's fee by persons whose communications are intercepted unlawfullyIn forcecited in 5 of our articles

24. Any person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this act shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses or uses or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use, such communication; and shall be entitled to recover from any such person: a. Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100.00 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000.00, whichever is higher; b. Punitive damages; and c. A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us

Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

State v. Petillo (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1972, 61 N.J. 165)“…8 , 113 A. 2d 884 (1955); Compare, N. J. S. A. 2A:156A-24. There is some conflict among th…”
Hornberger v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 2002, 351 N.J. Super. 577)“…son who intercepted or disclosed their oral communication. N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24. In State v. Diaz, 308 N.J.Super…”
M.G. v. J.C. (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 1991, 254 N.J. Super. 470)“…ney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred." (N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24) The facts in this case are not in di…”

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

§ 2A:156A-2Definitions.In force

2. As used in this act: a. "Wire communication" means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception, including the use of such connection in a switching station, furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of intrastate, interstate or foreign communication.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us

Cited in 55 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

State v. Edward Ronald Ates (070926) (Supreme Court of New Jersey 2014, 217 N.J. 253)“…h the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.” N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-2c. A wiretap order “may be executed at a…”
State v. Minter (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1989, 116 N.J. 269)“…of the State of New Jersey or its political subdivisions. N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-2(f). Because the act's requirement for p…”
State v. Fornino (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 1988, 223 N.J. Super. 531)“…telephone was not an "interception" within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-2(d)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (5)(a). […”

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

§ 2C:14-9Invasion of privacy, degree of crime; defenses, privileges.In forcecited in 11 of our articles

1. a. An actor commits a crime of the fourth degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know that another may expose intimate parts or may engage in sexual penetration or sexual contact, he observes another person without that person's consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed. b. (1) An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he photographs, films, videotapes, records, or otherwise reproduces in any manner, the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, without that person's consent and under circumstances in which a reasonable person would not expect to be observed.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us

Cited in 31 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSHUA NICHOLSON (13-12-0773, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 2017, 451 N.J. Super. 534)“…He pled guilty to third-degree invasion of privacy under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(b) (2004), now renumbered N.J.S.A. 2C:…”
State of New Jersey v. Dharun Ravi (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 2016, 447 N.J. Super. 261)“…tember 19, 2010, with regard to T.C. and M.B., contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(a); Count 2, third degre…”
C.R. v. M. T. (Supreme Court of New Jersey 2024)“…ould believe to be derived from criminal activity. . . .”); N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(a) (“An actor commits a crime of the fo…”

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

Also relied on in: New Jersey Video Recording Laws: What Is Legal and What Is Not

§ 40A:14-118.5Body worn cameras, recordings, regulations concerning usage; terms defined.In forcecited in 4 of our articles

1. a. For the purposes of this section: "Body worn camera" means a mobile audio and video recording system worn by a law enforcement officer, but shall not include a recording device worn by a law enforcement officer while engaging in an undercover assignment or a recording device used during a custodial interrogation conducted in a place of detention in compliance with Rule 3:17 of the Rules Governing the Courts of the State of New Jersey. "Constructive authority" means the use of the law enforcement officer's authority to exert control over a person, directed against a person who is subject to an investigative detention or arrest or against any person if the officer has un-holstered a firearm or a conducted energy device. "Force" shall include physical, mechanical, enhanced mechanical, and deadly force. "Law enforcement officer" means a person whose public duties include the power to act as an officer for the detection, apprehension, arrest, and conviction of offenders against the laws of this State. This term shall not include a correctional police officer.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us

Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Antonio Fuster v. Township of Chatham (2025) held subsection (k) did not entitle these requesters to review the footage, but ordered the body worn camera video released because no OPRA exemption applied. State v. Seligman (2025) held the subsection (q) presumption did not reach a search predating the law's June 2021 effective date.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Antonio Fuster v. Township of Chatham (Supreme Court of New Jersey 2025)✓A father who reported his child's abuse allegation sought the body worn camera video of his own police interview; the court held subsection (k) no longer helped him once he had requested three-year retention, but ordered release since no OPRA exemption covered the video.
State of New Jersey v. Yonathan Z. Seligman (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 2025)✓Officers executing a 2021 drug warrant did not timely activate their body cameras; the court held subsection (q)'s rebuttable presumption did not apply because the statute took effect after the search, and refused to make a directive violation trigger automatic suppression.
State of New Jersey v. Kevin B. Boone (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 2024)✓Challenging a pretextual car stop and the warrantless search that followed, the defendant sought suppression; the court noted in a footnote that the rebuttable presumption of N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5 took effect after the stop and so did not apply at the suppression hearing.

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

§ 34:6B-22Written notice for vehicle tracking device; penalties; definitions.In forcecited in 4 of our articles

1. a. As used in this act: "Electronic communications device" means any device that uses electronic signals to create, transmit, and receive information, including a computer, telephone, personal digital assistant, or other similar device. "Employer" means an employer or employer's agent, representative, or designee. The term "employer" does not include the Department of Corrections, State Parole Board, county correctional facilities, any State or local government entity, or any public transportation system, including, but not limited to, scheduled or charter bus transportation, whether operated by a public or private company. "Tracking device" means an electronic or mechanical device which is designed or intended to be used for the sole purpose of tracking the movement of a vehicle, person, or device but shall not include devices used for the purpose of documenting employee expense reimbursement.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us

§ 2C:43-3Fines and restitutionsIn forcecited in 8 of our articles

2C:43-3. Fines and Restitutions. A person who has been convicted of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine, to make restitution, or both, such fine not to exceed: a. (1) $200,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the first degree; (2) $150,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the second degree; b. (1) $15,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the third degree; (2) $10,000.00 when the conviction is of a crime of the fourth degree; c. $1,000.00, when the conviction is of a disorderly persons offense; d. $500.00, when the conviction is of a petty disorderly persons offense; e. Any higher amount equal to double the pecuniary gain to the offender or loss to the victim caused by the conduct constituting the offense by the offender. In such case the court shall make a finding as to the amount of the gain or loss, and if the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support such a finding the court may conduct a hearing upon the issue.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us

Cited in 62 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

State v. Newman (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1993, 132 N.J. 159)“…stitution ordered paid to the victim [to] his loss.” N.J.S.A. 2C:43-3h. Finally, the Code prohibits the impos…”
State v. Pena (Supreme Court of New Jersey 2004, 178 N.J. 297)“…000 for third-degree receiving stolen property pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-3b(1). Thus, Professor Singer's approach…”
State v. Rhoda (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 1986, 206 N.J. Super. 584)“…ine or restitution, or both, could have been ordered under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-3. We will refer shortly to defendant's a…”

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

§ 2C:43-6Sentence of imprisonment for crime; ordinary terms; mandatory terms.In forcecited in 9 of our articles

2C:43-6. a. Except as otherwise provided, a person who has been convicted of a crime may be sentenced to imprisonment, as follows: (1) In the case of a crime of the first degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between 10 years and 20 years; (2) In the case of a crime of the second degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between five years and 10 years; (3) In the case of a crime of the third degree, for a specific term of years which shall be fixed by the court and shall be between three years and five years; (4) In the case of a crime of the fourth degree, for a specific term which shall be fixed by the court and shall not exceed 18 months. b. As part of a sentence for any crime, where the court is clearly convinced that the aggravating factors substantially outweigh the mitigating factors, as set forth in subsections a. and b. of 2C:44-1, or the court finds that the aggravating factor set forth in paragraph (5) of subsection a.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us

Cited in 1,095 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

State v. Yarbough (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1985, 100 N.J. 627)“…ars imprisonment with a ten-year parole disqualifer. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6a.(l). The range of sentence for the thi…”
State v. Kelly (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1984, 97 N.J. 178)“…ce *220 her to a minimum term for a second degree crime. N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(a)(2); 2C:44-1(f)(1). See State v. R…”
State v. William A. Case, Jr. (072688) (Supreme Court of New Jersey 2014, 220 N.J. 49)“…factors substantially outweigh the mitigating factors.” N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(b). Central to the success of thi…”

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

§ 2C:44-1Criteria, withholding, imposing sentences, imprisonment.In forcecited in 4 of our articles

2C:44-1. a. In determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed on a person who has been convicted of an offense, the court shall consider the following aggravating circumstances: (1) The nature and circumstances of the offense, and the role of the actor in committing the offense, including whether or not it was committed in an especially heinous, cruel, or depraved manner; (2) The gravity and seriousness of harm inflicted on the victim, including whether or not the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim of the offense was particularly vulnerable or incapable of resistance due to advanced age, ill-health, or extreme youth, or was for any other reason substantially incapable of exercising normal physical or mental power of resistance; (3) The risk that the defendant will commit another offense; (4) A lesser sentence will depreciate the seriousness of the defendant's offense because it involved a breach of the public trust under chapters 27 and 30 of this title, or the defendant took advantage of a position of trust or confidence to commit the offense; (5) There is a substantial likelihood that the defendant is involved in organized criminal…

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us

Cited in 1,726 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

State v. Roth (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1984, 95 N.J. 334)“…t govern the State’s right to appeal sentences under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(f)(2). It is our view that the Code est…”
State v. Reinaldo Fuentes (070729) (Supreme Court of New Jersey 2014, 217 N.J. 57)“…s application of the aggravating and mitigating factors in N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a) and (b). On July 1, 2009,…”
State v. William A. Case, Jr. (072688) (Supreme Court of New Jersey 2014, 220 N.J. 49)“…ant’s conduct neither caused nor threatened serious harm,” N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(1); “defendant did not contemplate…”

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

United States Code Title 18

§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 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) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.