South Carolina

South Carolina 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 30, 202613 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. · 18 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

South Carolina Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

Key Takeaways

1South Carolina is a one-party consent state under S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-30(C). If you are a party to the conversation, you may record it without telling anyone else.
2Criminal interception is a felony under § 17-30-50(A): up to 5 years in prison or a $5,000 fine, or both.
3S.C. Code § 17-30-135 provides one of the strongest civil wiretap remedies in the country: the greater of actual damages, $500 per day of violation, or $25,000, plus punitive damages, attorney's fees as part of the entitled relief, costs, equitable relief, a 5-year discovery-rule statute of limitations, and a statutory jury-trial right. Those terms apply to private defendants: § 17-30-135(F) routes claims against the State, an agency, a political subdivision, or a government employee acting within the scope of official duty through the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, which caps the liquidated-damages award, bars punitive damages, and shortens the limitations period.
4Hidden cameras and peeping are criminalized by § 16-17-470. Subsection (B) voyeurism requires sexual-gratification intent; subsection (C) aggravated voyeurism (selling or distributing recordings) is a felony up to 10 years.
5Act 37 of 2025 (signed May 12, 2025) created § 16-15-332, criminalizing non-consensual distribution of intimate images and AI-generated deepfakes that appear to a reasonable person to be indistinguishable from authentic depictions.
6Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep't, 59 F.4th 674 (4th Cir. 2023), holds that a passenger livestreaming his own traffic stop engages in protected First Amendment speech. The Fourth Circuit has not recognized a general right to record police in public, and the town's livestreaming policy was remanded, not resolved.

South Carolina is a one-party consent state under S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-30(C): if you are a party to the conversation, you may record it without notifying anyone else. Recording without consent is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, and the victim can sue a private defendant for at least $25,000 in statutory damages, one of the highest civil floors in the country. A claim against a government agency runs through the South Carolina Tort Claims Act instead, which caps the award and bars punitive damages.

South Carolina recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
Consent rule	One-party consent
Primary statute	S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-30(C)
When recording is illegal	When no party consents (third-party interception)
Criminal penalty	Felony: up to 5 years / $5,000 (§ 17-30-50(A))
Civil damages floor	Greater of $500/day, $25,000, or actual damages against a private defendant (§ 17-30-135); Tort Claims Act caps apply to government defendants (§ 17-30-135(F))
Hidden cameras / voyeurism	§ 16-17-470 (sexual-gratification intent required for (B); forfeiture mandatory)
Recording police	Livestreaming your own stop is protected speech per Sharpe (4th Cir. 2023); no general right to record police yet recognized

For the full breakdown of each rule, see the in-depth guides below.

Recording in-person conversations in South Carolina

South Carolina's one-party consent rule comes from S.C. Code § 17-30-30(C), which reads: "It is lawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception."

Either branch is independently sufficient. You can record your own conversation without asking anyone; you can also record a conversation after one participant (including yourself) gives consent. There is no beep-tone requirement and no advance-notice obligation for civilian recordings.

The statute covers wire, oral, and electronic communications as defined in § 17-30-15. Oral communication is an utterance made under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation of privacy. A loud argument on a public sidewalk receives little protection; a quiet conversation in a closed office or medical exam room is covered. A third party who is not a participant and has no consent from any party commits a felony by intercepting the communication.

South Carolina over-the-shoulder view of two people seated across a small table mid-conversation

One South Carolina-specific doctrine to know: in State v. Whitner, 399 S.C. 547, 732 S.E.2d 861 (2012), the South Carolina Supreme Court recognized that a parent or guardian may give vicarious consent on behalf of a minor child, but only with a "good faith, objectively reasonable basis" that the recording is in the child's best interest. Whether a parent had that basis is a question of fact: in Whitner, the court found the evidence supported the mother's good faith and objectively reasonable belief that recording the call was necessary and in the child's best interest.

South Carolina's safe harbor notably lacks the federal "criminal or tortious purpose" qualifier found in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). On its face, a one-party recording made with a tortious motive may still clear the criminal statute, though common-law tort remedies (intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts) can still apply.

Recording phone calls in South Carolina

Phone calls are wire communications under § 17-30-15 and follow the same one-party rule. If you are on the call, you may record it. The rule applies equally to landlines, cell phones, VoIP services (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet, WhatsApp, FaceTime audio), and conference calls in which you are a participant.

Voicemails left for you are also covered: you, as the called party, are a party to the message, so saving and forwarding an incoming voicemail falls within the one-party safe harbor.

For interstate calls, federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) sets a one-party floor, but the all-party-consent states (California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington) may assert jurisdiction when one party is in their state. Connecticut's criminal wiretap law is one-party, but C.G.S. 52-570d imposes civil liability for recording a call without all-party consent. Oregon is one-party consent for phone calls under ORS 165.540(1)(a), but ORS 165.540(1)(c) requires that all participants be specifically informed before an in-person conversation or a video call is recorded, because ORS 165.535 defines a conversation to include a communication through a video conferencing program. The practical rule: if you may use the recording in litigation, obtain on-the-record consent so no state's law is at issue.

To see which rule controls for a call between South Carolina and another state, try our recording consent checker.

For a deeper treatment, see South Carolina Phone Call Recording Laws.

South Carolina dome security camera in the corner of an office ceiling

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Title 17, Chapter 30 covers audio interception. Surreptitious visual capture is handled separately by S.C. Code § 16-17-470.

Subsection (A) (peeping): It is unlawful to be a peeping tom on or about the premises of another, including any person who employs video or audio equipment for that purpose. Penalty: misdemeanor, up to 3 years and $500.

Subsection (B) (voyeurism): A person commits voyeurism by knowingly photographing, audio recording, video recording, producing, or creating a digital file of another person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, without that person's consent, in a place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (bathrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, bedrooms, hotel rooms). The sexual-gratification purpose is a required element. First offense: misdemeanor, up to 3 years and $500. Second or subsequent offense: felony, up to 5 years and $500 to $5,000.

Subsection (C) (aggravated voyeurism): Knowingly selling, distributing, or disseminating any image or recording taken in violation of the section. Penalty: felony, up to 10 years and $500 to $5,000.

Forfeiture: Materials procured in violation must be forfeited and destroyed when no longer required for evidentiary purposes (§ 16-17-470(F)).

Exceptions: Subsection (E) exempts several categories of conduct from the subsection (A) peeping-tom offense only, including correctional-facility security monitoring, bona fide business security surveillance, official law enforcement activity under § 16-17-480, private investigators conducting routine surveillance in the ordinary course of business, and bona fide news gathering. Read the opening words carefully: (E) says "the provisions of subsection (A) do not apply to" those categories, so the carve-outs do not reach subsection (B) voyeurism or subsection (C) aggravated voyeurism. A business, an investigator, or a news gatherer who records a person for sexual gratification in a place carrying a reasonable expectation of privacy, or who sells or distributes such a recording, has no safe harbor under (E). Separately, the "premises of another" element in subsection (A) has been read narrowly: in Herald Publishing Co. v. Barnwell, 291 S.C. 4, 351 S.E.2d 878 (S.C. Ct. App. 1986), the court held the peeping-tom statute did not reach reporters who waited in a public press area to overhear a closed city council session, since they were on public property, not the "premises of another."

For your home, a doorbell or nanny camera pointed at your own property (yard, entryway, driveway) is lawful. Pointing it into a neighbor's bedroom or bathroom implicates § 16-17-470 even on your own property. An audio-capable camera that records conversations inside the home falls under § 17-30-30; the one-party rule applies to any audio captured while you are present in the conversation.

For deeper guidance, see South Carolina Security Camera Laws and South Carolina Voyeurism Laws.

South Carolina wooden gavel on a sound block on a judge's bench

Penalties for illegal recording in South Carolina

Criminal

Under § 17-30-50(A), intentionally intercepting, disclosing, or using a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of the chapter is a felony: up to 5 years in prison or a $5,000 fine, or both. A narrow misdemeanor reduction (up to 1 year and $1,000) applies only to first-offense, non-commercial interceptions of unscrambled radio-band communications. Ordinary phone or in-person interceptions carry only the felony.

Civil

S.C. Code § 17-30-135 entitles the victim to recover the greater of actual damages, $500 per day of violation, or $25,000, whichever is highest. Against a private defendant the floor is not a cap: a six-month violation produces $90,000 in per-day damages, and the plaintiff recovers that higher figure. On top of the floor, the statute gives a plaintiff suing a private defendant:

Element	What the statute gives
Liquidated damages floor	Greater of $500/day, $25,000, or actual damages
Punitive damages	Available
Attorney fees	Part of the statute's entitled relief (17-30-135(A)(4))
Litigation costs	Recoverable
Equitable relief	Available (injunction, destruction of recordings)
Statute of limitations	5 years from discovery (discovery rule, not date of recording)
Jury trial	Statutory right

Government defendants are the exception. The liquidated-damages provision in subsection (A)(2) carries its own proviso, "not to exceed the limits on liability provided in subsection (F)(3)," and subsection (F) rewrites every line of the table above when the defendant is the State, an agency, a political subdivision, or a governmental entity or employee acting within the scope of official duty. Subsection (F)(1) treats the violation as a tort under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, Chapter 78 of Title 15. Subsection (F)(3) applies the Tort Claims Act damages caps in § 15-78-120(a), currently $300,000 per person per occurrence and $600,000 in the aggregate, to the liquidated-damages award, so the floor becomes a ceiling. Subsection (F)(4) applies the Tort Claims Act bar on punitive damages in § 15-78-120(b) in place of subsection (A)(3). Subsection (F)(2) substitutes the Tort Claims Act limitations period in § 15-78-110, two years from discovery (three if a claim was filed first), for the 5-year discovery rule in subsection (C). Anyone weighing a wiretap claim against a law enforcement agency should work from those numbers, not the ones above.

For comparison, federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. § 2520 caps statutory damages at the greater of $100 per day or $10,000, with discretionary (not mandatory) attorney fees. South Carolina's $25,000 floor is two and a half times higher; its per-day rate is five times higher; attorney's fees are part of the plaintiff's entitled relief rather than a purely discretionary award; and the SoL is a 5-year discovery rule rather than two years. South Carolina's civil package is one of the strongest wiretap remedies in any U.S. jurisdiction.

Recording the police in South Carolina

South Carolina sits in the Fourth Circuit. The controlling precedent is Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep't, 59 F.4th 674 (4th Cir. 2023), which held that a passenger livestreaming his own traffic stop engages in speech protected by the First Amendment. The panel applied a burden-shifting test: the government must show a weighty enough interest, that its policy furthers that interest, and that the policy is sufficiently tailored to it, then vacated and remanded the question of whether the town's livestreaming ban survives that test, so the underlying policy dispute remains open. In footnote 5, the panel expressly declined to recognize a general First Amendment right to record police officers performing their duties in public, holding that Sharpe lacked standing to seek that broader declaration. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on December 11, 2023, leaving the Fourth Circuit's narrower holding in force throughout South Carolina.

A note on qualified immunity: the Sharpe panel held that the individual officer who acted in 2018 had qualified immunity because it was not yet clearly established that barring a passenger from livestreaming his own traffic stop violated the First Amendment. Sharpe established, going forward, that livestreaming one's own traffic stop is protected speech; it did not establish a general right to record police in public. The panel also vacated the district court's judgment for the town on the official-capacity claim and remanded it, holding that the town had not yet shown its officer-safety rationale justified the livestreaming ban on the existing record; municipal liability under Sharpe is not automatic and turns on that remand proceeding.

Practical limits: record from a reasonable distance, do not physically obstruct the officer, and comply with lawful orders to step back. Under § 17-30-30(C), any participant in the encounter (including the person being stopped) may record audio without notifying the officer.

For more, see South Carolina Laws on Recording Police.

Person in a grey hooded jacket seen from behind holding a phone up toward a wet city street with pedestrians

Special topics in South Carolina

Intimate images and AI deepfakes (Act 37 of 2025)

Act No. 37 of 2025 (H. 3058), signed by Governor Henry McMaster on May 12, 2025, and effective immediately, created S.C. Code §§ 16-15-330 and 16-15-332. Section 16-15-332 criminalizes intentional dissemination of an intimate image or a digitally forged intimate image (AI-generated content that "appears to a reasonable person to be indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction") of an identifiable person without effective consent. Aggravated first offense (intent to harm or profit): felony, up to 5 years and $5,000. Subsequent aggravated offense: mandatory felony of 1 to 10 years and $10,000 (no suspension or probation). Non-aggravated first offense: misdemeanor, up to 1 year and $5,000. South Carolina was the last state without such a statute before Act 37 closed the gap.

TAKE IT DOWN Act federal overlay

The TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025), criminalizes knowing publication of non-consensual intimate imagery including AI-generated forgeries and requires covered platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours (platform obligation effective May 19, 2026). The federal Act layers on top of § 16-15-332 without preempting state law.

Body-worn cameras: the Walter L. Scott Body Camera Law

S.C. Code § 23-1-240, named for Walter Scott (fatally shot during a 2015 North Charleston traffic stop), requires state and local agencies to implement body-worn cameras under Law Enforcement Training Council guidelines. Body-camera data is explicitly excluded from the Freedom of Information Act; access is limited to a closed statutory list (criminal defendants, civil litigants, the subject of the recording, owners of affected property, and their attorneys), proceeding through the Rules of Criminal or Civil Procedure or a court order. A general FOIA request will be denied.

Workplace recording and the NLRB

Under § 17-30-30(C), an employee who is a party to a workplace conversation may record it without telling management. However, South Carolina employers can adopt narrowly tailored no-recording policies; violating a company rule is not a state crime but can be a basis for at-will termination. Federal NLRA coverage still applies to most South Carolina major employers. Under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), a blanket no-recording rule is presumptively unlawful. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) is a housekeeping rescission of prior GC guidance, not an overruling of Stericycle. GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) narrowly bars surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se bad-faith-bargaining violation. For detail, see South Carolina Workplace Recording Laws.

Federal overlay: ECPA, FCC, and HIPAA

ECPA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522, is the federal one-party-consent floor; South Carolina's § 17-30-30(C) generally meets or exceeds it. The FCC's old "beep tone" rule at 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 was removed effective November 20, 2017 and is no longer live law. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) classifies AI-generated voices as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA, requiring prior express written consent for marketing robocalls. HIPAA's Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. Part 164, binds South Carolina providers, not patients; a patient may record their own medical visit under the one-party rule.

Recent legal developments

May 12, 2025: Governor McMaster signs Act 37 of 2025 (H. 3058), creating §§ 16-15-330 and 16-15-332. South Carolina becomes the last state to enact a non-consensual intimate-image statute; the law expressly covers AI deepfakes.
May 19, 2025: TAKE IT DOWN Act signed federally; criminal prohibition immediate; platform 48-hour takedown obligation effective May 19, 2026.
February 14, 2025: NLRB GC 25-05 issued, rescinding certain Biden-era GC memoranda and returning to Boeing-era enforcement priorities. Does not overrule Stericycle.
January 24, 2025: Eleventh Circuit vacates FCC One-to-One Consent Rule (FCC 24-24); mandate April 30, 2025. Pre-existing TCPA consent rules under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2)-(3) remain in force.
December 11, 2023: U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari in Winterville Police Dep't v. Sharpe, No. 23-272. The Fourth Circuit's narrower Sharpe holding (a passenger livestreaming his own traffic stop is protected speech; no general right to record police recognized) remains controlling in South Carolina.
June 25, 2025: NLRB GC 25-07 issued, taking position that surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions is a per se bad-faith-bargaining violation.

South Carolina recording laws in depth

Want to know more? Each page below covers a specific recording context in depth.

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More South Carolina 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 South Carolina attorney.

More South Carolina Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is South Carolina a one-party or two-party consent state?

South Carolina is a one-party consent state. Under S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-30(C), a person not acting under color of law may lawfully record a wire, oral, or electronic communication when that person is a party to the communication or when one party has given prior consent. State v. Whitner, 399 S.C. 547, 732 S.E.2d 861 (2012), recognizes vicarious parental consent for a minor child within an objective good-faith limit.

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

Yes, if you are a party to the call. Section 17-30-30(C) requires only one party's consent, and that party can be you. There is no beep-tone or advance-notice requirement. For calls touching California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, or Washington (all-party states, with Connecticut's all-party rule civil rather than criminal), the safe practice is to disclose and obtain consent, especially if you may use the recording as evidence.

What is the penalty for illegally recording someone in South Carolina?

Criminal interception under § 17-30-50(A) is a felony: up to 5 years in prison or a $5,000 fine, or both. A reduced misdemeanor (up to 1 year, $1,000) applies only to first-offense non-commercial interceptions of unscrambled radio-band communications. Voyeurism under § 16-17-470 carries up to 3 years (misdemeanor) to 10 years (felony aggravated) depending on the offense. Unauthorized intimate-image disclosure under § 16-15-332 carries up to 5 years (aggravated first offense) to mandatory 1-10 years (subsequent aggravated).

Can I sue someone for illegally recording me in South Carolina?

Yes. S.C. Code § 17-30-135 entitles a victim to the greater of actual damages, $500 per day of violation, or $25,000 (whichever is highest), plus punitive damages, attorney's fees as part of the entitled relief, litigation costs, equitable relief, a 5-year discovery-rule statute of limitations, and a statutory jury-trial right. This compares favorably to federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. § 2520 ($100/day or $10,000 floor, court-discretionary fees, 2-year SoL). Those terms describe a suit against a private defendant. If the defendant is the State, an agency, a political subdivision, or a government employee acting within the scope of official duty, § 17-30-135(F) routes the claim through the South Carolina Tort Claims Act: the liquidated-damages award is capped under § 15-78-120(a), punitive damages are barred under § 15-78-120(b), and the Tort Claims Act limitations period in § 15-78-110 replaces the 5-year discovery rule.

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in South Carolina?

Yes, for cameras pointed at your own property (yard, driveway, entryway). Pointing a camera into a space where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy (bathroom, bedroom, dressing room) can violate § 16-17-470 regardless of whose property the camera is on. Audio-capable cameras inside the home recording conversations in which you are a participant are lawful under § 17-30-30(C).

Can I record my boss or an HR meeting in South Carolina?

Yes under state law. Section 17-30-30(C) lets you record any conversation you are participating in without notifying the other parties. An employer can impose a no-recording policy under the handbook, and violating that policy can be a basis for at-will termination, but it is not a state criminal offense. Under NLRB Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), a blanket no-recording rule is presumptively unlawful; a narrowly tailored rule with Section 7 carve-outs generally survives.

Can I record the police in South Carolina?

Generally yes, though the ruling is narrower than it is sometimes described. Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep't, 59 F.4th 674 (4th Cir. 2023), held that a passenger livestreaming his own traffic stop is protected First Amendment speech, but the panel declined to recognize a general right to record police in public and remanded the question of whether the town's livestreaming ban is constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on December 11, 2023, leaving that narrower holding in place. Record from a reasonable distance, do not interfere with police activity, and comply with lawful orders.

What does South Carolina Act 37 of 2025 cover?

Act 37 of 2025 (signed May 12, 2025) created S.C. Code §§ 16-15-330 and 16-15-332, criminalizing intentional non-consensual dissemination of intimate images and AI-generated deepfakes that appear to a reasonable person to be indistinguishable from authentic depictions. Aggravated first offense is a felony up to 5 years and $5,000; subsequent aggravated offense carries mandatory 1-10 years with no suspension. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) adds a parallel criminal prohibition and requires platforms to take down flagged content within 48 hours (effective May 19, 2026).

Updates

September 30, 2026

Corrected the description of Oregon's recording law: participants must be informed before recording in-person conversations and video calls, while phone calls follow a one-party rule.

September 23, 2026

Corrected the description of State v. Whitner: removed a statement that recording for tactical use in a custody dispute does not qualify, which the opinion does not say, and replaced it with the court's actual treatment of the parent's good-faith basis as a question of fact.

August 26, 2026

Corrected two statutory scope errors: the § 16-17-470(E) exceptions apply only to the subsection (A) peeping-tom offense and not to the voyeurism offenses in (B) and (C), and the § 17-30-135 civil remedies section now explains that claims against the State, an agency, or a government employee run through the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, which caps damages, bars punitive damages, and shortens the limitations period.

August 15, 2026

Corrected the Supreme Court's certiorari-denial date in Winterville Police Dep't v. Sharpe (December 11, 2023, not June 24, 2024) and removed a fabricated note that Justice Kagan did not participate; narrowed the description of the Sharpe ruling itself to reflect that it protects a passenger livestreaming his own traffic stop, not a general right to record police, with the underlying town policy still on remand; fixed the interstate all-party-consent list (Oregon is one-party for phone calls; Connecticut has the all-party civil-liability rule); replaced a dead citation link for State v. Whitner with a working source; and softened "mandatory" attorney's fees language to match the civil statute's actual entitlement wording.

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 10,000+ word page into scannable sections with short paragraphs, at-a-glance table, and in-depth index. Preserved all verified statutes, cases, and citations. Corrected § 16-17-470(B) description: the voyeurism subsection requires 'for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire' as an essential element, which the prior version omitted. Corrected § 23-1-240 body-cam subsection reference (prior version cited a 'subsection (J)' tampering penalty not found in the current statute text). Refreshed FAQ with new questions on deepfakes and nanny cams. Added Recent Legal Developments section. All load-bearing facts re-verified against scstatehouse.gov and ca4.uscourts.gov primary sources.

May 10, 2026

Refreshed for 2026: anchored S.C. Code § 17-30-30(C) one-party consent rule for civilians; documented S.C. Code § 17-30-135 civil cause of action as one of the strongest statutory wiretap remedies in the country (greater of $500/day or $25,000, plus punitive damages, attorney fees, costs, equitable relief, 5-year discovery-rule SoL, statutory jury-trial right); corrected baseline mislabeling of § 17-30-50 as the civil cause (it is the criminal penalty section); added S.C. Code § 16-15-332 NCII / deepfake statute (Act No. 37 of 2025, H. 3058, signed by Governor Henry McMaster on May 12, 2025, effective immediately) covering both authentic and digitally forged intimate images; flagged H. 3517 election-deepfake bill as introduced-only (no live S.C. Code § 7-25-230); added Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep't, 59 F.4th 674 (4th Cir. 2023), cert denied June 24, 2024 (Justice Kagan took no part), as the controlling 4th Circuit record-the-police precedent; added State v. Whitner, 399 S.C. 547, 732 S.E.2d 861 (2012), parental vicarious-consent doctrine; corrected body-cam citation to S.C. Code § 23-1-240 (Walter L. Scott Body Camera Law); reframed NLRB GC 25-05 as a housekeeping rescission of prior GC guidance (NOT a Boeing-era reinstatement of Stericycle); updated FCC 24-24 vacatur with both decision date (Jan. 24, 2025) and mandate (Apr. 30, 2025); removed stale 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 reference (rule was removed Nov. 20, 2017); added TAKE IT DOWN Act federal compliance overlay (Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025); replaced commercial-codifier URLs with scstatehouse.gov, sccourts.org, ca4.uscourts.gov, governor.sc.gov, and uscode.house.gov primary sources.

May 10, 2026

Refreshed for 2026: anchored S.C. Code § 17-30-30(C) one-party consent rule for civilians; documented S.C. Code § 17-30-135 civil cause of action as one of the strongest statutory wiretap remedies in the country (greater of $500/day or $25,000, plus punitive damages, attorney fees, costs, equitable relief, 5-year discovery-rule SoL, statutory jury-trial right); corrected baseline mislabeling of § 17-30-50 as the civil cause (it is the criminal penalty section); added S.C. Code § 16-15-332 NCII/deepfake statute (Act No. 37 of 2025, H. 3058, signed by Governor Henry McMaster on May 12, 2025, effective immediately) covering both authentic and digitally forged intimate images; flagged H. 3517 election-[deepfake](/us-laws/deepfake-laws) bill as introduced-only; added Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep't, 59 F.4th 674 (4th Cir. 2023) (a passenger livestreaming his own traffic stop is protected speech; no general right to record police recognized), cert denied December 11, 2023, as the controlling 4th Circuit record-the-police precedent; added State v. Whitner, 399 S.C. 547, 732 S.E.2d 861 (2012), parental vicarious-consent doctrine; corrected body-cam citation to S.C. Code § 23-1-240; reframed NLRB GC 25-05 as a housekeeping rescission of prior GC guidance; updated FCC 24-24 vacatur; removed stale 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 reference; added TAKE IT DOWN Act federal compliance overlay; replaced commercial-codifier URLs with primary sources.

March 23, 2026

Added wearable recording devices section and 2 new FAQs about AI voice recorders and smart glasses

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.

South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 17: CRIMINAL PROCEDURES

§ 17-30-30Interception by employee of Federal Communications Commission, by person acting under color or law, and when party has given prior consentIn forcecited in 19 of our articles

(A) It is lawful under this chapter for an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the commission in the enforcement of 47 U.S.C. Chapter 5, to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication transmitted by radio or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained. (B) It is lawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception. (C) It is lawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov

Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

McNeely (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)“…a showing. The South Carolina statute cited by Plaintiff—S.C. Code § 17-30-30—provides “it is lawful . . . for a per…”

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

§ 17-30-135Civil action for wrongful interceptionsIn forcecited in 10 of our articles

(A) Any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter has a civil cause of action against any person or entity who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person or entity to intercept, disclose, or use the communications and is entitled to recover from the person or entity which engaged in that violation relief as may be appropriate, including: (1) preliminary or equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; (2) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of five hundred dollars a day for each day of violation or twenty-five thousand dollars, whichever is greater, not to exceed the limits on liability provided in subsection (F)(3); (3) punitive damages, except as may be prohibited in subsection (F)(4); and (4) a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov

Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Carson v. Emergency MD LLC (District Court, D. South Carolina 2020)“…ation of this chapter has a civil cause of action . . . .” S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-135(A). Moreover, the SCHSA’s list of proh…”

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

§ 17-30-50Penalty for violating Sections 17-30-20 through 17-30-45In forcecited in 11 of our articles

(A) Except as provided in subsection (B), whoever violates the provisions of Sections 17-30-20 through 17-30-45, upon conviction, must be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both. (B) If the offense is a first offense under this chapter and is not for any unlawful purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, and the wire or electronic communication with respect to which the offense under this chapter was committed is a radio communication that is not scrambled, encrypted, or transmitted using modulation techniques the essential parameters of which have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of the communication, then: (1) if the communication is not the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication, or a paging service communication, and the conduct is not that described in Section 17-30-35(7), the person committing the offense is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must…

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov

§ 17-30-15DefinitionsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles

As used in this chapter: (1) "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 this connection in a switching station furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating the facilities for the transmission of intrastate, interstate, or foreign communications or communications affecting intrastate, interstate, or foreign commerce. The term includes any electronic storage of the communication. (2) "Oral communication" means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying the expectation and does not mean any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting or any electronic communication. (3) "Intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov

Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Fast Formliners Company v. Construction Resource Group, Inc. (Court of Appeals of South Carolina 2025)“…ed to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication." S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-15(4)(a)(i) (2014) ("'Electronic, mechani…”
TELECO Inc v. Mutolo (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)“…Mutolo’s consent was not needed to record the call. See SC Code Ann. 17-30-15, 17-30-30. Therefore, Mutolo has fai…”
Ducharme v. Madewell Concrete LLC (District Court, D. South Carolina 2021)“…h the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.” S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-15(3); 18 U.S.C. § 2510(4). Research has…”

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

South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 16: CRIMES AND OFFENSES

§ 16-17-470Eavesdropping, peeping, voyeurismIn forcecited in 14 of our articles

(A) It is unlawful for a person to be an eavesdropper or a peeping tom on or about the premises of another or to go upon the premises of another for the purpose of becoming an eavesdropper or a peeping tom. The term "peeping tom", as used in this section, is defined as a person who peeps through windows, doors, or other like places, on or about the premises of another, for the purpose of spying upon or invading the privacy of the persons spied upon and any other conduct of a similar nature, that tends to invade the privacy of others. The term "peeping tom" also includes any person who employs the use of video or audio equipment for the purposes set forth in this section. A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov

Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. Anthony Helton (2019) read the section's voyeurism subsection to require knowingly viewing a person without consent, where privacy is expected, for sexual arousal or gratification, and held that conviction a sex offense requiring federal registration. State v. Harris (1987) held peeping tom a crime of moral turpitude.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

State v. Holmes (Supreme Court of South Carolina 1995, 320 S.C. 259)✓At a capital murder trial the defense was barred from impeaching a jailhouse witness with his 1984 Peeping Tom conviction; the court held that was error because a section 16-17-470 violation is a crime of moral turpitude, but found the error harmless.
State v. Harris (Supreme Court of South Carolina 1987, 293 S.C. 75)✓A man tried for assault with intent to commit sexual conduct with a minor was impeached with a prior Peeping Tom conviction; the court held the section 16-17-470 offense is a crime of moral turpitude, so using it to attack his credibility was proper.
In re Parrott (Supreme Court of South Carolina 2017, 421 S.C. 105)“…ondent was arrested and charged with voyeurism pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-470 (B) (2015) after he used a cell phone t…”

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

§ 16-15-332Disseminating intimate images without consentIn forcecited in 10 of our articles

(A) A person who intentionally disseminates an intimate image or a digitally forged intimate image of another person without the effective consent of the depicted person is guilty of the unauthorized disclosure of intimate images. A person intentionally disseminates an intimate image or a digitally forged intimate image if he has knowledge that the image was obtained or created under circumstances when he knew or reasonably should have known the person depicted had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Any dissemination of multiple intimate images of the same individual as part of a common act is a single offense. The fact that the identifiable individual: (1) provided affirmative consent for the creation of the intimate image shall not establish that the individual provided effective consent for the dissemination of the intimate image; and (2) disclosed the intimate image to another individual shall not establish that the identifiable individual provided effective consent for the dissemination of the intimate image by the person alleged to have violated this section.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov

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.

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

§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 130 of our articles

Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 860 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walker v. Darby (1990) held a 2520 plaintiff need not prove the contents of intercepted conversations, only interception and a justified expectation against it. Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) barred 2520 damages against defendants who took no part in the interception, obtained the tape lawfully, and disclosed a matter of public concern.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573)✓A postal letter carrier said three supervisors wired an intercom near his workstation to listen in. Reversing summary judgment, the Eleventh Circuit held a section 2520 plaintiff can show interception without proving the contents of specific conversations.
Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41)“…disclosure, or use is entitled to recover civil damages, 18 U. S. C. § 2520 . Title III also bars the use as eviden…”
DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)“…7 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(4), or alternatively, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (a), or alternatively, for violations o…”

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

Connecticut General Statutes, Title 52 (Civil Actions), Chapter 925

§ 52-570dAction for illegal recording of private telephonic communications.In forcecited in 56 of our articles

(a) No person shall use any instrument, device or equipment to record an oral private telephonic communication unless the use of such instrument, device or equipment (1) is preceded by consent of all parties to the communication and such prior consent either is obtained in writing or is part of, and obtained at the start of, the recording, or (2) is preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning and is part of the communication by the recording party, or (3) is accompanied by an automatic tone warning device which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at intervals of approximately fifteen seconds during the communication while such instrument, device or equipment is in use.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov

Cited in 22 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp. (1998) held section 52-570d creates a cause of action unknown at common law that is strictly construed, and does not reach a third party's rerecording of an already illegal tape. Jezouit v. Malloy (2019) held the statute does not waive the state's sovereign immunity from suit.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp. (Connecticut Appellate Court 1998, 47 Conn. App. 764)✓A girlfriend secretly taped a radio employee's call, and a coworker re-recorded that tape and used it to get him fired. The court held section 52-570d, strictly construed, bars taping a private call but not a third party's re-recording of an already illegal tape.
Jezouit v. Malloy (Connecticut Appellate Court 2019, 193 Conn. App. 576)“…his complaint because (1) he brought his claim pursuant to General Statutes § 52-570d, which he contends waives sovereign imm…”
State v. Skok (Supreme Court of Connecticut 2015)“…on without the consent of all parties to the communication. General Statutes § 52-570d (a) prohibits the use of ‘‘any instrume…”

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

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

§ 165.540Obtaining contents of communicationsIn forcecited in 49 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) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov

Cited in 76 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Fleetwood (2000) applied ORS 165.540 to body wire evidence, holding that words spoken into a telephone are a telecommunication under subsection (1)(a) and that the (5)(a)(B) exception fails unless the officer or the officer's agent shares reciprocally in the conversation, so the recordings were inadmissible.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

State v. Klein (Oregon Supreme Court 2012, 352 Or. 302)“…eing 3 recorded. Conversations recorded in violation of ORS 165.540 are not admissible in 4 court excep…”
North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Oliver (Oregon Supreme Court 1979, 286 Or. 639)✓A lumber wholesaler secretly monitored traders' calls; on de novo review the court said the practice may have violated ORS 165.540 but refused to rest unclean hands on it, since the ex-employee's calls were never monitored. The employer's noncompete suit failed on other grounds.
State v. Fleetwood (Oregon Supreme Court 2000, 331 Or. 511)✓A detective wired an informant and recorded the suspect's side of a phone call and his talks with his mother and a juvenile seller; the court held those interceptions violated ORS 165.540(1)(a) and (1)(c) because the informant was not a participant, and upheld suppression.

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

South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 23: LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY

§ 23-1-240Body-worn cameras; definition; guidelines; policies and procedures; fund; data releaseIn forcecited in 8 of our articles

(A) For purposes of this section, "body-worn camera" means an electronic device worn on a person's body that records both audio and video data. (B) State and local law enforcement agencies, under the direction of the Law Enforcement Training Council, shall implement the use of body-worn cameras pursuant to guidelines established by the Law Enforcement Training Council. (C) Within one hundred eighty days after the effective date of this section, the Law Enforcement Training Council shall conduct a thorough study of the use, implementation procedures, costs, and other related aspects associated with body-worn cameras in jurisdictions with body-worn cameras currently in use or which begin their use during this period. The Law Enforcement Training Council shall develop guidelines for the use of body-worn cameras by state and local law enforcement agencies within one hundred eighty days of the effective date of this act.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov

Code of Federal Regulations Title 47

§ 64.1200Delivery restrictions.In forcecited in 14 of our articles

(a) No person or entity may: (1) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, initiate any telephone call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or is made with the prior express consent of the called party) using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; (i) To any emergency telephone line, including any 911 line and any emergency line of a hospital, medical physician or service office, health care facility, poison control center, or fire protection or law enforcement agency; (ii) To the telephone line of any guest room or patient room of a hospital, health care facility, elderly home, or similar establishment; or (iii) To any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is charged for the call.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ecfr.gov

Cited in 840 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Samuel Zean v. Fairview Health Services (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2017, 858 F.3d 520)“…with . . . the prior express consent of the called party.” 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2). Under the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. §…”
Krakauer v. Dish Network, L. L.C. (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2019, 925 F.3d 643)“…ing regulations was the national Do-Not-Call registry. See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)(2). Within the federal government’s…”
ACA Int'l v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2018, 885 F.3d 687)“…C. Compare 16 C.F.R. §§ 310.4(b)(1)(iii)(B), 310.4(c), with 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c). But the agencies’ initiatives also…”