Texas

Texas Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

Independently fact-checked Editor-reviewed Law current as of August 7, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 2026Reviewed August 26, 202612 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 7, 2026. · 20 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Texas Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

Key Takeaways

1Texas is a one-party consent state under Tex. Penal Code § 16.02(c)(4): a participant may record any wire, oral, or electronic communication without notifying the other parties.
2Unlawful interception is a second-degree felony: 2 to 20 years in TDCJ plus a fine up to $10,000 (Tex. Penal Code §§ 16.02(b), 12.33).
3Civil damages under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.004 start at a $10,000 per-occurrence floor, plus actual damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees.
4Video recording of intimate areas, or any place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, is a state-jail felony under Tex. Penal Code § 21.15, broadened by H.B. 1465 (eff. Sept. 1, 2025) to also require sex-offender registration on conviction.
5The Fifth Circuit recognizes a clearly established First Amendment right to record police in public under Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017).
6Texas has aggressive 2025 deepfake statutes: Tex. Penal Code § 21.165 (criminal) and Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 98B (civil, 72-hour takedown).

Texas is a one-party consent state under Tex. Penal Code § 16.02. If you are a party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication, you may record it without telling anyone else. Recording a conversation you are not part of is a second-degree felony, and a victim of illegal recording can sue for at least $10,000 per occurrence plus punitive damages under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.004.

Texas recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
Consent rule	One-party: a participant may record without disclosure
Main statute	Tex. Penal Code § 16.02
When recording is illegal	Non-participant interception without any party's consent
Criminal penalty	Second-degree felony: 2 to 20 years TDCJ, fine up to $10,000
Civil penalty	$10,000 per occurrence (floor), plus actual damages, punitives, attorney fees
Hidden cameras / intimate areas	State-jail felony under Tex. Penal Code § 21.15; sex-offender registration required (post-9/1/2025)
Recording police in public	Yes, clearly established First Amendment right (Fifth Circuit, 2017)

For a deeper treatment of any row, see the in-depth guides below.

Recording in-person conversations in Texas

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

Tex. Penal Code § 16.02(b) makes it a crime to intentionally intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication. The one-party carve-out lives in § 16.02(c)(4), which is structured as an affirmative defense rather than an element of the offense. Subsections (c)(4)(A) and (B) provide that interception is not a crime if the actor is a party to the communication, or if a party has given prior consent, unless the interception is for the purpose of committing an unlawful act.

"Oral communication" under Texas law means an in-person utterance by a person who exhibits an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, in circumstances that justify that expectation. A private conversation in a closed office meets that test; a normal-volume exchange at a busy coffee shop generally does not.

You can lawfully record in-person conversations in Texas when you are a participant, when the conversation takes place in public without a reasonable expectation of privacy, or when you have consent from at least one party (which can be yourself). You cannot record conversations you are not part of, and you cannot use a participant's presence as a pretext for capturing conversations while you are absent from the premises.

Recording phone calls in Texas

Yes. Texas one-party consent under § 16.02(c)(4)(A) permits a participant to record any call, landline, cell, VoIP, or the audio leg of a video call, without a beep tone or oral disclosure. There is no general notice requirement on private parties under Texas law. You cannot install a recording device on someone else's phone or in a room you do not occupy; that is third-party interception and a second-degree felony.

Interstate calls. Federal law sets a one-party consent floor at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) but does not preempt stricter state laws. When a Texas caller reaches someone in a two-party state, courts generally apply the law with the stronger privacy interest, usually the stricter state. If any participant is in California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, or Washington, disclose and get consent before recording. Connecticut, Nevada, Oregon, and Delaware also impose narrower or contested all-party rules on calls that can require disclosure depending on the circumstances.

For full interstate call guidance, see Texas Phone Call Recording Laws.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Texas dome security camera in the corner of an office ceiling, soft interior daylight

Plain video recording in public places is generally lawful in Texas without consent. The wiretap statute does not reach silent video, and Texas has no general right-of-publicity statute barring photography in public.

Video crosses into criminal territory under Tex. Penal Code § 21.15 (Invasive Visual Recording) when someone photographs or records a person's intimate areas without consent and with intent to invade that person's privacy. Sexual gratification is not an element of § 21.15(b); the current text requires only that the recording be made without the other person's consent and with intent to invade that person's privacy.

What H.B. 1465 (eff. Sept. 1, 2025) changed. The 89th Legislature broadened the location element from "bathroom or changing room" to any "place in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy," defined as a location where a reasonable person would believe they could undress without concern about being recorded. Bathrooms, bedrooms, and changing rooms are listed examples but the definition is not limited to them. H.B. 1465 also amended Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 62.001(5) to add § 21.15 convictions to the list of reportable offenses triggering mandatory sex-offender registration. The base offense remains a state-jail felony (180 days to 2 years; fine up to $10,000).

A nanny cam or Ring doorbell on your own property recording common areas is generally lawful. A hidden camera capturing a guest bedroom, bathroom, or other private area is a § 21.15 violation regardless of whose home it is. If the camera also captures audio, that audio falls under § 16.02's one-party rule; a camera set to record household conversations with no participant present is third-party interception.

A companion statute, Tex. Penal Code § 21.16, criminalizes disclosure of intimate visual material originally made under an expectation of confidentiality, even when the original recording was consensual.

For details, see Texas Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws and Texas Video Recording Laws.

Penalties for illegal recording in Texas

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

Criminal penalties. Unlawful interception under § 16.02(b) is a felony of the second degree. Under Tex. Penal Code § 12.33, that means 2 to 20 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice plus a fine up to $10,000. Two § 16.02 variants drop to a state-jail felony under § 12.35 (180 days to 2 years; fine up to $10,000). Under § 16.02(f) those are the only two: manufacture, possession, or sale of an interception device under § 16.02(d), and obstructing or giving notice of an authorized interception under § 16.02(g). Unlawful use of a pen register or trap and trace device is a separate offense under Tex. Penal Code § 16.03, also a state-jail felony.

Offense	Statute	Classification	Range
Illegal interception, disclosure, or use	§ 16.02(b)	2nd-degree felony	2-20 yrs TDCJ; up to $10,000 fine
Manufacture, possession, sale of interception device	§ 16.02(d)	State-jail felony	180 days-2 yrs; up to $10,000 fine
Obstructing or giving notice of an authorized interception	§ 16.02(g)	State-jail felony	180 days-2 yrs; up to $10,000 fine
Pen-register / trap-and-trace misuse	§ 16.03	State-jail felony	180 days-2 yrs; up to $10,000 fine
Invasive visual recording	§ 21.15	State-jail felony	180 days-2 yrs; up to $10,000 fine; sex-offender registration

Civil remedies. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.004 provides the private cause of action. A successful plaintiff is entitled to: (1) an injunction against further interception or disclosure; (2) statutory damages of $10,000 for each occurrence, which is a floor, not a cap; (3) all actual damages in excess of that floor; (4) punitive damages in an amount the court or jury determines; and (5) reasonable attorney fees and costs. A plaintiff does not need to prove actual harm to trigger the $10,000-per-occurrence floor.

Recording the police in Texas

The Fifth Circuit held in Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017) that the First Amendment protects the right to record police performing their duties in public, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. The right was clearly established as of February 2017, so officers who interfere with lawful public-space recording after that date risk losing qualified immunity. Turner remains good law in the Fifth Circuit as of June 2026; there has been no en banc rehearing or Supreme Court review.

You can film traffic stops (including your own), record arrests in public, and livestream encounters with police. You cannot obstruct police operations or trespass for a better angle. Tex. Penal Code § 38.15 (Interference with Public Duties) reaches conduct that physically obstructs an officer, not recording itself.

The Texas Open Meetings Act, Tex. Gov't Code Chapter 551, requires most government meetings to be open. City councils, county commissioners courts, school boards, and the legislature may set reasonable equipment rules but cannot prohibit recording at a public meeting outright.

For more detail, see Texas Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in Texas

Workplace recording

Texas one-party consent lets an employee record their own conversations with a supervisor or HR representative without notice, commonly used to document harassment, wage disputes, or performance reviews. However, the NLRB's decision in Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) makes blanket no-recording handbook rules presumptively unlawful under Section 7 of the NLRA. An employer must show a legitimate, substantial business interest not achievable by a narrower rule. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) did not rescind Stericycle; NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) narrowly addresses surreptitious recording at collective-bargaining sessions and does not undo employee one-party-consent recording of supervisor conversations.

Employers may record common work areas where employees have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Cameras or audio recording in bathrooms, locker rooms, or changing areas violate § 21.15. Texas has no analog to California's mandatory disclosure requirement. See Texas Workplace Recording Laws.

Deepfakes and AI imagery (89th Legislature, eff. Sept. 1, 2025)

Texas enacted the most comprehensive state-level deepfake regime in the country in 2025. Tex. Penal Code § 21.165 (S.B. 441) criminalizes knowing production or distribution of "deep fake media" depicting a real person's intimate parts or sexual conduct without written consent. The base offense is a Class A misdemeanor; it elevates to a third-degree felony if the actor has a prior conviction or the depicted person is under 18. A separate subsection (b-1) adds a Class B misdemeanor threat offense for threatening to produce or distribute deepfakes to coerce, extort, harass, or intimidate, elevating to Class A on a prior conviction or minor victim.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Chapter 98B extends civil liability to AI-generated intimate imagery and imposes a 72-hour takedown duty on website operators after receiving a valid removal request.

Federal overlay

18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) (ECPA) sets a one-party consent floor that mirrors Texas law. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) classifies AI-generated voice as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA, requiring prior express consent for such calls; this is active as of June 2026. The FCC's One-to-One Consent Rule (FCC 24-24) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit on January 24, 2025 (mandate April 30, 2025) and is no longer in effect. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (signed May 19, 2025) criminalizes knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate depictions and digital-forgery deepfakes; the platform notice-and-removal compliance deadline was May 19, 2026. Texas subjects of such material have three parallel pathways: TAKE IT DOWN Act (48-hour platform removal), Ch. 98B (72-hour state takedown), and DMCA copyright removal. HIPAA governs a provider's downstream use of a recording; it does not prohibit a patient from recording their own visit. See our federal Wiretap Act and ECPA guide for the full federal framework.

Recent legal developments

September 1, 2025: H.B. 1465 broadened Tex. Penal Code § 21.15 location element from "bathroom or changing room" to any place with a reasonable expectation of privacy, and added § 21.15 convictions to the mandatory sex-offender registration list (Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 62.001(5)).
September 1, 2025: S.B. 441 amended Tex. Penal Code § 21.165 to replace "deep fake video" with "deep fake media" (covering still images), added a Class B misdemeanor threat offense, and amended Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ch. 98B to extend civil liability to AI-generated intimate imagery with a 72-hour takedown duty.
May 19, 2025: Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act signed; criminal provisions immediate; platform compliance deadline May 19, 2026.
April 30, 2025: FCC One-to-One Consent Rule (FCC 24-24) vacated by Eleventh Circuit mandate.
June 25, 2025: NLRB GC 25-07 addresses surreptitious recording at collective-bargaining sessions; Stericycle standard for handbook rules unaffected.

Texas recording laws in depth

Texas a small audio recorder and over-ear headphones resting on a stack of legal documents

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Texas 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 Texas attorney.

More Texas Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Texas a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?

Texas is a one-party consent state. Under Tex. Penal Code § 16.02(c)(4), a participant in a wire, oral, or electronic communication may lawfully record without notifying the other parties. Recording a conversation you are not part of is a second-degree felony under § 16.02(b).

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

Yes, if you are on the call. Texas imposes no beep-tone or oral-disclosure requirement on private parties. If the person you are calling is in a two-party state such as California, Florida, Pennsylvania, or Washington, that state's all-party rule typically applies, so disclose before recording.

What are the penalties for illegal recording in Texas?

Unlawful interception under § 16.02 is a second-degree felony: 2 to 20 years in TDCJ plus a fine up to $10,000. Civil damages under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.004 start at a $10,000 per-occurrence floor, plus actual damages above that floor, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees.

Is it legal to video record someone in Texas without their consent?

Plain video in public places is generally lawful. Video of intimate areas, or of a person in any place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy (bathroom, bedroom, changing room), is a state-jail felony under Tex. Penal Code § 21.15 and now triggers mandatory sex-offender registration after H.B. 1465 (eff. Sept. 1, 2025).

Can I record the police in Texas?

Yes. Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017), recognizes a clearly established First Amendment right to record police performing public duties. Officers who interfere with lawful public-space recording risk forfeiting qualified immunity.

Can my employer prohibit me from recording at work in Texas?

Blanket no-recording handbook rules are presumptively unlawful under NLRB Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023). The employer must show a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be achieved by a narrower rule. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 2025) did not rescind Stericycle, so the standard remains in force.

What did Texas H.B. 1465 change about hidden cameras?

H.B. 1465 (eff. Sept. 1, 2025) broadened the location element of Tex. Penal Code § 21.15 from 'bathroom or changing room' to any place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and added § 21.15 convictions to the mandatory sex-offender registration list under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 62.001(5).

Are recordings admissible in Texas family or divorce court?

Recordings lawfully made under § 16.02 (one-party consent by a participant) are generally admissible in Texas civil and family proceedings, subject to authentication under Tex. R. Evid. 901. The vicarious-consent doctrine for parents recording minor children has not been resolved by the Texas Supreme Court; consult a Texas family-law attorney before relying on it.

Updates

August 26, 2026

Corrected two statutory citations in the penalties section (unlawful use of a pen register is Tex. Penal Code § 16.03, and manufacture, possession, or sale of an interception device is § 16.02(d)), removed a description of H.B. 421, a 2025 deepfake-generator bill that was never enacted, and corrected the § 21.15 intent element, which requires intent to invade privacy and no longer includes a sexual-gratification alternative.

August 15, 2026

Added Montana to the interstate all-party-consent call list so it matches this page's audio and phone-calls sub-pages, and noted Connecticut, Nevada, Oregon, and Delaware as narrower or contested rather than omitting them; replaced a dead DOJ Justice Manual citation link with its current archived URL.

August 15, 2026

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources

August 7, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

June 5, 2026

Reviewed and approved by an editor

June 5, 2026

Restructured for readability: condensed bloat, added at-a-glance table, separated in-person/phone/hidden-camera/penalties/police sections, consolidated special topics (workplace, deepfakes, federal overlay) into tight subsections, added in-depth sub-page index, refreshed FAQ to 8 questions, prepended this UpdatesLog entry. All verified statutes, case law, and 2025 legislative changes preserved. Hero and inline images updated to recording-law pool.

May 9, 2026

Refreshed for 2026 with the 89th Texas Legislature recording-related bills, the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act compliance deadline, the Eleventh Circuit vacatur of FCC 24-24, and updated NLRB workplace overlay (Stericycle, GC 25-05, GC 25-07). Added Tex. Penal Code § 21.15 H.B. 1465 expansion (place with reasonable expectation of privacy; mandatory sex-offender registration eff. 9/1/2025). Added Tex. Penal Code § 21.165 deepfake media S.B. 441 amendment and Class B misdemeanor threat offense. Added Tex. Civ. Prac. and Rem. Code Chapter 98B 72-hour takedown duty for artificial intimate imagery. Added new Tex. Bus. and Com. Code Chapter 121 (H.B. 421) AI deepfake-generator age-verification and consent duties. Added federal TAKE IT DOWN Act with May 19, 2026 platform compliance deadline. Updated FCC 24-24 status to vacated by 11th Cir. mandate Apr. 30, 2025. Added FCC 24-17 (AI voice as artificial) as active TCPA overlay. Replaced encyclopedia citation for Turner v. Driver with the Fifth Circuit official PDF. Added cross-state call decision table (TX caller into 9 all-party states). Added clarification that § 16.02(c)(4) is structured as an affirmative defense, not an element. Clarified that $10,000 under § 123.004 is a per-occurrence floor, not a cap. Added NLRB GC 25-05 / GC 25-07 framing alongside Stericycle. Replaced /party-two-party-consent-states/ link with /united-states-recording-laws/one-party-consent-states/ where appropriate. Removed Amazon-affiliate digital recorder link. Removed sitewide More Texas Laws link block (off-topic for recording-laws hub). Switched to § symbol throughout for consistency with project style.

May 9, 2026

Refreshed for 2026 with the 89th Texas Legislature recording-related bills, the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act compliance deadline, the Eleventh Circuit vacatur of FCC 24-24, and updated NLRB workplace overlay (Stericycle, GC 25-05, GC 25-07). Added Tex. Penal Code § 21.15 H.B. 1465 expansion (place with reasonable expectation of privacy; mandatory sex-offender registration eff. 9/1/2025). Added Tex. Penal Code § 21.165 deepfake media S.B. 441 amendment and Class B misdemeanor threat offense. Added Tex. Civ. Prac. and Rem. Code Chapter 98B 72-hour takedown duty for artificial intimate imagery. Added federal TAKE IT DOWN Act with May 19, 2026 platform compliance deadline. Updated FCC 24-24 status to vacated by 11th Cir. mandate Apr. 30, 2025. Added FCC 24-17 (AI voice as artificial) as active [TCPA](/us-laws/tcpa) overlay. Replaced encyclopedia citation for Turner v. Driver with the Fifth Circuit official PDF. Added cross-state call decision table. Added clarification that § 16.02(c)(4) is an affirmative defense. Clarified that $10,000 under § 123.004 is a per-occurrence floor, not a cap. Added NLRB GC 25-05 / GC 25-07 framing alongside Stericycle.

March 23, 2026

Added wearable recording devices section covering one-party consent for wearables, CUBI Act biometric privacy, and Meta $1.4B settlement; added 2 FAQs on 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.

Texas Penal Code

§ 16.02UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION, USE, OR DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ORAL, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONSIn forcecited in 17 of our articles

(a) In this section: (1) "Communication common carrier," "computer trespasser," "contents," "covert entry," "electronic communication," "intercept," "interception device," "investigative or law enforcement officer," "oral communication," "protected computer," and "wire communication" have the meanings assigned by Article 18A.001, Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) "Immediate life-threatening situation" and "member of a law enforcement unit specially trained to respond to and deal with life-threatening situations" have the meanings assigned by Article 18A.201, Code of Criminal Procedure.

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

Cited in 39 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Texas courts have applied Section 16.02 to contested recordings. Long v. State (2017) held the oral communication definition carries a reasonable expectation of privacy test, sustaining a conviction over a covert locker room recording. Banargent v. State (2007) held a jail inmate impliedly consented, so no Section 16.02 violation.

Leading cases:

Banargent v. State (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) 2007, 228 S.W.3d 393)✓Jail phone prompts and posted notices warned that calls could be recorded, and a recorded call captured the defendant admitting he stabbed the victim; the court held he impliedly consented, so the recording did not violate Section 16.02.
Long v. State (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas 2017, 535 S.W.3d 511)✓A school board member had her daughter hide a phone in a visiting locker room to record the coach's halftime speech and sent it to the board; the court held Section 16.02's 'oral communication' incorporates the expectation of privacy test, which the coach met.
Siddiq v. State (Court of Appeals of Texas 2016, 502 S.W.3d 387)✓Police automatically recorded a DWI arrestee's call to his father from the jail book-in desk, capturing him saying he was drunk; the court applied the law enforcement exception to hold the recording did not violate Section 16.02, so admitting it was not error.

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

Also relied on in: Texas Laws on Recording Police: Rights, Limits, and Body Cameras, Texas Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Texas AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)

§ 38.15INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIESIn forcecited in 3 of our articles

(a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with: (1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law; (2) a person who is employed to provide emergency medical services including the transportation of ill or injured persons while the person is performing that duty; (3) a fire fighter, while the fire fighter is fighting a fire or investigating the cause of a fire; (4) an animal under the supervision of a peace officer, corrections officer, or jailer, if the person knows the animal is being used for law enforcement, corrections, prison or jail security, or investigative purposes; (5) the transmission of a communication over a citizen's band radio channel, the purpose of which communication is to inform or inquire about an emergency; (6) an officer with responsibility for animal control in a county or municipality, while the officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted under Chapter 821 or 822, Health and Safety Code; (7) a person who: (A) has responsibility for assessing, enacting, or enforcing public…

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

Cited in 90 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases:

Duncantell v. State (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) 2007, 230 S.W.3d 835)“…ence with the duties of a public servant. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.15 (a)(1) (Vernon 2003). We affirm.…”
Faust v. State (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas 2015, 491 S.W.3d 733)“…iment, or interference alleged “consisted of speech only.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.15 (d) (West 2013). This is why one court…”
Carney v. State (Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) 2000, 31 S.W.3d 392)“…erence with the duties of a peace officer. See Tex.Penal Code Ann. § 38.15 (West Supp.2000). The jury, having foun…”

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

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

United States Code Title 18

§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 415 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 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov

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

Leading cases:

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.