Alabama

Ala. Code § 13A-11-30, -31: Unlawful eavesdropping is defined as the overhearing or recording of the contents of a private communication without the consent of at least one person engaged in the communication. The statute has been interpreted as creating a right to privacy in communications — specifically, a right not to have communications overheard, recorded or disclosed without consent. Ages Group v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 22 F. Supp. 2d 1310 (M.D. Ala. 1998).

Criminal eavesdropping involves the intentional use of "any device" to overhear or record communications, whether the eavesdropper is present or not, without one party's consent. Criminal eavesdropping is a misdemeanor. Ala. Code § 13A-11-31. Knowingly divulging information obtained through illegal eavesdropping is a misdemeanor as well. Ala. Code § 13A-11-35. Misdemeanors in Alabama carry a maximum jail sentence of one year. Ala. Code § 13A-1-2.

While hidden cameras are not expressly addressed, it is a misdemeanor to engage in "criminal surveillance," defined as secret observation or photography while trespassing on private property. Criminal surveillance does not include observation on a public street. Ala. Code § 13A-11-32.

Alaska

Alaska Stat. § 42.20.310: It is illegal in Alaska to use an eavesdropping device to hear or record a conversation without the consent of at least one party to that conversation, or to disclose or publish information that one knows, or should know, was illegally obtained. A person who is not a party to a private conversation who receives information from that conversation cannot legally divulge or publish the information. Alaska Stat. § 42.20.300.

The state's highest court has held that the eavesdropping statute clearly was intended to prohibit third-party interception of communications and is not applicable to a participant in a conversation. Palmer v. Alaska, 604 P.2d 1106 (Alaska 1979). Any violation of the eavesdropping laws is a misdemeanor subject to a fine of up to $1,000 and/or one year in jail, and suppression of the contents in court is the only civil penalty authorized. Alaska Stat. § 42.20.330.

The state hidden camera statute applies only to images that include nudity. A person who views or produces a picture of a nude or partially nude person without consent commits the crime of "indecent viewing or photography." Alaska Stat. § 11.61.123.

Arizona

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3005: Interception of a wire or electronic communication by an individual who is not a party, without the consent of someone who is a party to the communication, is a felony. The electronic communications referred to in the statute include wireless and cellular calls. The overhearing of a conversation by an individual who is not present, without the consent of a party to that conversation, is also a felony. Both violations are classified as "class 5" felonies, which are the second least serious felonies in Arizona.

A state appellate court has held that a criminal defendant's contention that police officers violated this law by recording their interviews with him without his consent was meritless because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a police interview room. Arizona v. Hauss, 688 P.2d 1051 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).

In addition, a state appellate court has held that a mother who had a good-faith belief that it was necessary and in the best interests of her child may consent to taping the child's conversation with an alleged child molester. State v. Morrison, 56 P.3d 63 (App. Div. 1 2002).

It is unlawful for a person to photograph or film a person without consent while the person is in a restroom, locker room, bathroom or bedroom or is undressed or involved in sexual activity. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3019.

Arkansas

Ark. Code § 5-60-120: Intercepting or recording any wire, oral, or cellular or cordless phone conversations is a misdemeanor, unless the person recording is a party to the conversation, or one of the parties to the conversation has given prior consent. Arkansas law also criminalizes the "interception" of a message transmitted by telegraph or telephone in its "public utility" laws. Ark. Code § 23-17-107.

State law makes it a felony to use any camera or "image recording device" to secretly view or videotape a person in any place "where that person is in a private area out of public view, has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and has not consented to the observation." Ark. Code § 5-16-101.

California

Cal. Penal Code §§ 631, 632: It is a crime in California to intercept or eavesdrop upon any confidential communication, including a telephone call or wire communication, without the consent of all parties.

It is also a crime to disclose information obtained from such an interception. A first offense is punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and imprisonment for no more than one year. Subsequent offenses carry a maximum fine of $10,000 and jail sentence of up to one year.

Eavesdropping upon or recording a conversation, whether by telephone (including cordless or cellular telephone) or in person, that a person would reasonably expect to be confined to the parties present, carries the same penalty as intercepting telephone or wire communications.

Conversations occurring at any public gathering that one should expect to be overheard, including any legislative, judicial or executive proceeding open to the public, are not covered by the law.

An appellate court has ruled that using a hidden video camera violates the statute. California v. Gibbons, 215 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (1989). However, a television network that used a hidden camera to videotape a conversation that took place at a business lunch meeting on a crowded outdoor patio of a public restaurant that did not include "secret" information did not violate the Penal Code's prohibition against eavesdropping because it was not a "confidential communication." Wilkins v. NBC, Inc., 71 Cal. App. 4th 1066 (1999).

Anyone injured by a violation of the wiretapping laws can recover civil damages of $5,000 or three times actual damages, whichever is greater. Cal. Penal Code § 637.2(a). A civil action for invasion of privacy also may be brought against the person who committed the violation. Cal. Penal Code § 637.2.

Colorado

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303: Recording or overhearing a telephone conversation, or any electronic communication, without the consent of a party to the conversation is a felony punishable by a fine of between $1,000 and $100,000 and one year to 18 months in jail. Recording of a communication from a cordless telephone, however, is a misdemeanor. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1.3-401.

Using or disclosing information obtained through illegal wiretapping is prohibited if there is reason to know the information was obtained illegally. Anyone who is not "visibly present" during a conversation who overhears or records the conversation without the consent of at least one of the parties commits a felony carrying the same punishment as a telephone interception, as does anyone who discloses the contents of such a conversation. Colo. Rev. Stat § 18-9-304. However, nothing in these statutes "shall be interpreted to prevent a news agency, or an employee thereof, from using the accepted tools and equipment of that news medium in the course of reporting or investigating a public and newsworthy event." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-305.

Connecticut

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d: It is illegal to tape a telephone conversation in Connecticut without the consent of all parties. Consent should be in writing or should be given on the recording, or a verbal warning that the conversation is being taped should be included in the recording.

Anyone who records a telephone conversation without the consent of all the parties is subject to liability for civil damages, as well as litigation costs and attorney fees. In addition, it is a felony punishable by imprisonment for one to five years for anyone who is not a party to a conversation to mechanically overhear or record that conversation, including telephonic and cellular or wireless communications and face-to-face discussions, without the consent of at least one party. Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-187, 189.

Delaware

Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 2402(c)(4): Delaware's wiretapping and surveillance law specifically allows an individual to "intercept" (defined as acquiring the contents of a communication through a mechanical device) any wire, oral or electronic communication to which the individual is a party, or a communication in which any one of the parties has given prior consent, so long as the communication is not intercepted with a criminal or tortious intent.

However, another Delaware privacy law makes it illegal to intercept "without the consent of all parties thereto a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of communicating privately, including private conversation." Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1335(a)(4). The wiretapping law is much more recent, and at least one federal court has held that, even under the privacy law, an individual can record his own conversations. United States v. Vespe, 389 F. Supp. 1359 (1975).

Under the wiretapping law, communications intercepted illegally, or the disclosure of the contents of illegally recorded communications, can result in prosecution for a felony and a fine of up to $10,000. Del. Code Ann. tit 11, § 2402 (b). Civil liability also can be imposed in the amount of actual damages or a fine of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is more, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 2409.

Installing a camera or other recording device "in any private place, without consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy there" is a misdemeanor, and under a 1999 amendment, the use of hidden cameras to record individuals dressing or undressing in a private place is a felony. Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1335(2), (6).

District of Columbia

D.C. Code Ann. § 23-542: It is legal to record or disclose the contents of a wire or oral communication where the person recording is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties has given prior consent, unless the recording is done with criminal or injurious intent. A recording made without proper consent can be punished criminally by a fine of no more than $10,000 or imprisonment for no more than five years. However, disclosure of the contents of an illegally recorded communication cannot be punished criminally if the contents of the communication have "become common knowledge or public information."

Anyone who illegally records or discloses the contents of a communication is subject to civil liability for the greater of actual damages, damages in the amount of $100 per day for each day of violation, or $1,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. D.C. Code Ann. § 23-554.

Florida

Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03: All parties must consent to the recording or the disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication in Florida. Recording or disclosing without the consent of all parties is a felony, unless the interception is a first offense committed without any illegal purpose, and not for commercial gain, or the communication is the radio portion of a cellular conversation. Such first offenses and the interception of cellular communications are misdemeanors. State v. News-Press Pub. Co., 338 So. 2d 1313 (1976), State v. Tsavaris, 394 So. 2d 418 (1981).

Anyone whose communications have been illegally intercepted may recover actual damages or $100 for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Fla. Stat. ch. 934.10.

A federal appellate court has held that because only interceptions made through an "electronic, mechanical or other device" are illegal under Florida law, telephones used in the ordinary course of business to record conversations do not violate the law. The court found that business telephones are not the type of devices addressed in the law and, thus, that a life insurance company did not violate the law when it routinely recorded business-related calls on its business extensions. Royal Health Care Servs., Inc. v. Jefferson-Pilot Life Ins. Co., 924 F.2d 215 (11th Cir. 1991).

Georgia

Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-62: Secretly recording or overhearing a conversation held in a private place, whether carried out orally or by wire or electronic means, is criminally punishable as a felony under statutory provisions regarding invasions of privacy. However, the law expressly provides that it does not prohibit a person who is a party to a conversation from recording and does not prohibit recording if one party to the conversation has given prior consent. Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-66.

Interception of a private cellular telephone conversation without the consent of at least one of the parties is a misdemeanor. Barlow v. Barlow, 526 S.E. 2d 857 (2000).

A civil action for wiretapping offenses is authorized. Tapley v. Collins, 41 F. Supp.2d 1366 (S.D. Ga. 1999), rev'd on other grounds, 211 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2000).

Use of a hidden camera "without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view" is illegal. Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-62(2).

Hawaii

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42: Any wire, oral or electronic communication (including cellular phone calls) can lawfully be recorded by a person who is a party to the communication, or when one of the parties has consented to the recording, so long as no criminal or tortious purpose exists. Unlawful interceptions or disclosures of private communications are punishable as felonies.

The one-party consent rule does not apply, however, to the installation of a recording device in a "private place" that will amplify or broadcast conversations outside that private place. All parties who have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that place must consent to the installation of a recording device. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42(b)(3).

Civil penalties for unlawful interception or disclosure include the greater of actual damages or any profits made by the violator, $100 for each day of violation, or $10,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-48. A hotel room has been found by the Hawaii Supreme Court to be a private place where a recording device cannot legally be installed without the consent of the room's occupants. Hawaii v. Lo, 675 P.2d 754 (Haw. 1983).

It is a felony to install or use a surveillance device in a private place to view a person in a "stage of undress or sexual activity" without the person's consent. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1110.9. It is a misdemeanor to possess materials obtained in this manner. If the person is not in such a stage, it is a misdemeanor. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1111.

Idaho

Idaho Code § 18-6702: Although legislation criminalizes the interception and disclosure of wire or oral communications, it specifically allows interception when one of the parties has given prior consent. Punishment for the felony of an illegal interception or disclosure can include up to five years in prison and as much as $5,000 in fines. Anyone whose communications are unlawfully intercepted can sue for recovery of actual damages, $100 a day per day of violation or $1,000 — whichever is more. Punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney fees also can be recovered. Idaho Code § 18-6709.

Illinois

720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-1, -2: An eavesdropping device cannot be used to record or overhear a conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation under criminal statutes. An eavesdropping device is anything used to hear or record a conversation, whether the conversation is in person or conducted by any means other than face-to-face conversation, such as a telephone conversation.

In addition, it is criminally punishable to disclose information one knows or should know was obtained through an eavesdropping device. Offenses of the eavesdropping law are punishable as felonies, with first offenses categorized as lesser felonies than subsequent offenses. 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-4. Civil liability for actual and punitive damages is authorized as well. 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-6.

Standard radio scanners are not eavesdropping devices, according to a 1990 decision from an intermediate appellate court. Illinois v. Wilson, 554 N.E.2d 545 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990). A camera is not an eavesdropping device. Cassidy v. ABC, 377 N.E. 2d 126 (Ill. App. Ct. 1978).

It is also illegal for any person to "videotape, photograph, or film another person without that person's consent in a restroom, tanning bed, or tanning salon, locker room, changing room or hotel bedroom." 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/26-4(a).

Indiana

Ind. Code Ann. § 35-33.5-1-5: The recording or acquiring of the contents of a telephonic or telegraphic communication by someone who is neither the sender nor the receiver is a felony and can be the basis for civil liability. Ind. Code Ann. §§ 35-33.5-5-4, -5.

Civil liability may require the payment of actual damages, $100 per day for each day of violation or $1,000 — whichever is greater — and punitive damages, court costs and attorney fees. Ind. Code Ann. § 35-33.5-5-4.

Iowa

Iowa Code § 727.8: It is a misdemeanor in Iowa under general criminal laws to tap into a communication of any kind, including telephone conversations, unless the person listening or recording is a sender or recipient of the communication, or is openly present and participating in the conversation. Thus, one party to a communication generally may record it without the consent of the other parties.

Iowa also has more specific legislation regarding the interception of communications that expressly allows the interception of wire, oral or electronic communications through use of a mechanical device by a party to the communication, or with the consent of at least one party, in the absence of any criminal or tortious intent. Iowa Code § 808B.2.

Illegal interception and disclosure of intercepted information under this legislation are misdemeanors, and anyone whose communications have been intercepted is expressly provided with injunctive relief and damages at a rate of $100 a day or $1,000, whichever is higher. Iowa Code § 808B.8.

Kansas

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4001: Unlawful eavesdropping consists of secretly listening to, recording, or amplifying private conversations or using any device to intercept a telephone or wire communication "without the consent of the person in possession or control of the facilities for such wire communication." Violations are misdemeanors. A criminal breach of privacy, punishable as a misdemeanor as well, occurs when any means of private communication is intercepted without the consent of the sender or receiver. Divulging the existence or contents of any type of private communication, whether carried out by telephone or even letter, is also a misdemeanor if the person knows the message was intercepted illegally. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4002. The state's highest court has interpreted the eavesdropping and privacy statutes to sanction one-party consent for taping of conversations and in interpreting both statutes stated: "In other words, any party to a private conversation may waive the right to privacy and the non-consenting party has no Fourth Amendment or statutory right to challenge the waiver." Kansas v. Roudybush, 686 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1984).

It is a misdemeanor to use a hidden camera to photograph a person who is nude or in a state of undress without the person's consent in a place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-4001(a)(4).

Kentucky

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 526.010: It is a felony to overhear or record, through use of an electronic or mechanical device, a wire or oral communication without the consent of at least one party to that communication. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 526.020.

Anyone who inadvertently hears a conversation transmitted through a wireless telephone on a radio receiver does not violate the eavesdropping statute, but if that same conversation is recorded or passed on to others without the consent of a party to the original conversation, a violation occurs. Ky. Att'y Gen. Op. 84-310 (1984).

Divulging information obtained through illegal eavesdropping is a separate crime, punishable as a misdemeanor. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 526.060.

Louisiana

La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1303: Unless a criminal or tortious purpose exists, a person can record any conversations transmitted by wire, oral or electronic means to which he is a party, or when one participating party has consented. A violation of the law, whether by recording or disclosing the contents of a communication without proper consent, carries a fine of not more than $10,000 and jail time of not less than two and not more than 10 years at hard labor.

Civil damages are expressly authorized as well. Actual damages can be recovered — minimum damages in any case will be the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000 — along with punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney fees. La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1312.

The use of any type of hidden camera to observe or record a person where that person has not consented is illegal if the recording "is for a lewd or lascivious purpose." La. Rev. Stat. § 14:283.

Louisiana

The use of any type of hidden camera to observe or record a person where that person has not consented is illegal if the recording "is for a lewd or lascivious purpose." La. Rev. Stat. § 14:283.

Maryland

Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 10-402: It is a felony to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication unless all parties to the communication have consented. But all-party consent will not make the recording legal if there is a criminal or tortious purpose behind it.

Disclosing the contents of intercepted communications with reason to know they were obtained unlawfully is a crime as well.

Violations of the law are felonies punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years and a fine of not more than $10,000. Civil liability for violations can include the greater of actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. To recover civil damages, however, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant knew it was illegal to tape the communication without consent from all participants. Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings § 10-410.

State courts have interpreted the laws to protect communications only when the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and thus, where a person in a private apartment was speaking so loudly that residents of an adjoining apartment could hear without any sound enhancing device, recording without the speaker's consent did not violate the wiretapping law. Malpas v. Maryland, 695 A.2d 588 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997); see also Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., 649 F. Supp. 9 (D. Md. 1986) (salesman's presentation in stranger's home not assumed to carry expectation of privacy).

It is a misdemeanor to use a hidden camera in a bathroom or dressing room. It is also a misdemeanor to use a hidden camera on private property "for purposes of conducting deliberate, surreptitious observation of a person inside the private residence," or in a private place with "prurient intent." Md. Crim. Law §§ 3-901, -902, -903. A person who is viewed in violation of these statutes has a civil cause of action.

Massachusetts

Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 , § 99: It is a crime to record any conversation, whether oral or wire, without the consent of all parties in Massachusetts. The penalty for violating the law is a fine of up to $10,000 and a jail sentence of up to five years.

Disclosure of the contents of an illegally recorded conversation, when accompanied by the knowledge that it was obtained illegally, is a misdemeanor that can be punished with a fine of up to $5,000 and imprisonment for up to two years. Civil damages are expressly authorized for the greater of actual damages, $100 for each day of violation or $1,000. Punitive damages and attorney fees also are recoverable.

Michigan

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c: A private conversation legally cannot be overheard or recorded without the consent of all participants. Illegal eavesdropping can be punished as a felony carrying a jail term of up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000.

In addition, any individual who divulges information he knows, or reasonably should know, was obtained through illegal eavesdropping is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and a fine of up to $2,000. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539e. Civil liability for actual and punitive damages also are sanctioned. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539h.

The eavesdropping statute has been interpreted by one court as applying only to situations in which a third party has intercepted a communication, an interpretation that makes it legal for a participant in a conversation to record that conversation without the permission of other parties. Sullivan v. Gray, 324 N.W.2d 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).

The state supreme court stated in a July 1999 ruling that a participant in a conversation "may not unilaterally nullify other participants' expectations of privacy by secretly broadcasting the conversation" and that the overriding inquiry should be whether the parties "intended and reasonably expected that the conversation was private." Therefore, it is likely that a recording party may not broadcast a recorded conversation without the consent of all parties. Dickerson v. Raphael, 601 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. 1999).

Under the Michigan statute, a parent may not vicariously consent to a recording for a minor child. Williams v. Williams, 603 N.W. 2d 114 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).

It is a felony to observe, photograph or eavesdrop on a person in a private place without the person's consent. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539d. A private place is a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from intrusion or surveillance, but not a place where the public has access. Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539a.

Minnesota

Minn. Stat. § 626A.02: It is legal for a person to record a wire, oral or electronic communication if that person is a party to the communication, or if one of the parties has consented to the recording — so long as no criminal or tortious intent accompanies the recording. Unlawful recordings, or disclosure of their contents if there is knowledge or reason to know of the illegal acquisition, carry maximum penalties of imprisonment for five years and fines of $20,000. In addition, civil liability for violations statutorily can include three times the amount of actual damages or statutory damages of up to $10,000, as well as punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney fees. Minn. Stat. § 626A.13.

Under state court interpretations, when an employee of a local television station secretly videotaped a veterinarian treating a pet in a private home for an investigative news report, the station did not violate the wiretapping law because its employee was a party to the communication and it had no tortious intent. Regardless of the fact that allegations of tortious trespass existed, the court found the station's intent was commercial, not tortious. Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 526 N.W.2d 402 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), cert. denied, 1998 Minn. LEXIS 77 (Minn. Jan. 28, 1998).

A federal court has interpreted the statute to allow a parent or guardian to consent to taping on behalf of a minor child. Wagner v. Wagner, 64 F. Supp.2d 895 (D. Minn. 1999).

It is a misdemeanor to use any type of device for "observing, photographing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or other aperture of a sleeping room in a hotel, a tanning booth or any other place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts or the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts." Minn. Stat. § 609.746. State v. Morris, 644 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. App. 2002) (defendant who concealed video camera in bag and used it to videotape up the skirts of females in department store violated statute prohibiting interference with privacy).

Mississippi

Miss. Code Ann. §§ 41-29-501 to -537: It is generally a violation of Mississippi law to intercept and acquire the contents of wire, oral or other communications with a mechanical or electronic device. The law against interception of communications applies neither to a "subscriber" to a telephone who "intercepts a communication on a telephone to which he subscribes," nor to members of the subscriber's household. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-535, Wright v. Stanley, 700 So.2d 274 (Miss. 1997) (state law prohibition on wiretapping did not apply to former wife who intercepted communications on her own telephone).

Violations can be punished as misdemeanors carrying the potential for imprisonment for up to one year and fines of up to $10,000. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-533. It is a felony, however, for anyone who is not a law-enforcement officer to disclose the contents of intercepted communications for any reason other than testifying under oath in a governmental or court proceeding, and the penalty for such disclosure can be up to five years imprisonment and up to $10,000 in fines. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 41-29-511, 529. Civil liability for an unlawful interception is expressly authorized for actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000 — whichever is greater — along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-529.

In addition, the law specifically provides that if a person is a party to a communication, or has obtained consent from any one of the parties, no civil liability can be imposed unless the interception was accompanied by a criminal or tortious intent. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-531. According to current legislation, the laws in place regarding the interception of wire and oral communications are set to be repealed on July 1, 2004. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-537.

Also, the contents of cellular telephone communications are unlawfully obtained when access is gained by a person who is not the intended recipient, or is not authorized to have access to the transmission. The possible penalties for unlawfully obtaining access to cellular communications are imprisonment for up to six months or a fine of up to $1,000. Miss. Code Ann. § 97-25-49.

Missouri

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402: Only an individual who is a party to a wire communication, or who has the consent of one of the parties to the communication, can lawfully record it or disclose its contents unless it is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Recording or disclosing the contents of a wire communication by all other persons is a felony.

Anyone whose communications have been recorded or disclosed in violation of the law can bring a civil suit to recover the greater of actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, and can recover punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs as well. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.418.

A Missouri appellate court has held that radio broadcasts from cordless telephones are not wire communications, and thus, recording such radio broadcasts is not illegal under the eavesdropping statute. Missouri v. King, 873 S.W.2d 905 (Mo. App. 1994).

It is also illegal to view or photograph a person in "a state of full or partial nudity" if the person "is in a place where he would have a reasonable expectation of privacy." Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.253.

Montana

Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213: It is a violation of privacy in communications under state law to record a conversation with a hidden electronic or mechanical device without the knowledge of all parties to the conversation, but the law does not apply to public officials or employees speaking in the course of their duties, to anyone speaking at a public meeting, or to anyone who has been warned of the recording.

Disclosure of the contents of an illegally recorded conversation also is a violation of the law. A first offense carries a penalty of no more than $500 in fines and no more than six months in prison. A second offense carries a penalty of no more than $1,000 and no more than one year in prison, while a third offense can be punished by no more than $10,000 in fines and no more than five years in prison.

Nebraska

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290: A person who is a party to a wire, electronic or oral communication, or who has obtained prior consent from a party, can record or disclose the contents of that communication without violating the law, so long as there is no criminal or tortious purpose behind the recording or disclosure. Illegal interceptions are felonies that can be punished with fines up to $10,000 and five years in prison. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105.

In addition, anyone whose conversation has been illegally intercepted is specifically authorized to recover through a civil action monetary damages, litigation costs and attorney fees. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-297.

Nevada

Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.620: The Nevada wiretapping statute provides that it is a crime for anyone to "intercept" or disclose the contents of any wire communication, but that no illegal activity occurs when the interception is made "with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication" and "an emergency situation exists."

In December 1998, the state's highest court stated in a 3-2 decision that the wiretapping statutes require that an individual obtain the consent of all parties before taping a telephone conversation, and thus, that an individual who tapes his own telephone calls without the consent of all participants unlawfully "intercepts" those calls. Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998).

In addition, it is a criminal invasion of privacy to secretly listen to, record or disclose the contents of any private conversation "engaged in by other persons" through use of any mechanical or electronic device, "unless authorized to do so by one of the persons engaging in the conversation." Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.650.

Nevada statutory provisions also make it a crime to disclose the existence or contents of any wire or radio communication without permission from the sender or receiver. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.630. Violations of the statutes can be punished as felonies and carry civil liability for actual damages, $100 per day of violation or $1,000 — whichever is greater. In civil cases, punitive damages, costs and attorney fees also can be recovered. Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.690

New Hampshire

N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:2: It is a felony to intercept, or disclose the contents of, any telecommunication or oral communication without the consent of all parties. However, it is a misdemeanor for a party to a communication, or anyone who has the consent of only one of the parties, to intercept a telecommunication or oral communication.

Civil damages are expressly authorized for unlawful interceptions for the greater of actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000 in addition to punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:11.

Use of a hidden camera in a private place without the consent "of the persons entitled to privacy therein" is a misdemeanor. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 644:9. A classroom was not a private place where a school custodian could reasonably expect to be safe from video surveillance. State v. McLellan, 744 A.2d 611 (N.H. 1999).

New Jersey

N.J. Stat. § 2A:156A-3: Interception of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or disclosure of the contents of such communication by someone having reason to know of the interception, is a crime. The disclosure of intercepted information is not a crime, however, if the contents of the communication have "become public knowledge or public information."

In addition, an interception is legal if the interceptor is a party to the communication, or one of the parties has given prior consent, so long as no criminal or tortious intent is present. Nonetheless, even if a person is a subscriber to a particular telephone, that person cannot consent to the recording of conversations on that telephone to which he is not a party. N.J. Stat. § 2A:156A-4.

Civil liability for unlawful interception or disclosure can be imposed for the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation or $1,000, and can include punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. N.J. Stat. § 2A:156A-24.

New Mexico

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1: A criminal interference with communications occurs when anyone intercepts, records or discloses the contents of any message sent by telephone or telegraph without the consent of a sender or receiver. Illegal interceptions are misdemeanors. Illegal interceptions carry the potential for civil liability for the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation or $1,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-11.

An intermediate appellate court has stated that in New Mexico, "one who voluntarily enters into a conversation with another takes the risk that the other person on the line may memorize, record or even transmit the conversation." New Mexico v. Arnold, 610 P.2d 1214 (N.M Ct. App. 1979), rev'd on other grounds, 610 P.2d 1210 (N.M. 1980).

New York

N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05: It is a Class E felony to overhear or record a telephonic or telegraphic communication if one is not the sender or receiver, or does not have the consent of either the sender or receiver. It also is a crime for someone not present to overhear or record any conversation or discussion without the consent of at least one party to that conversation.

Cordless telephone conversations that are partially broadcast over ordinary radio waves are protected by the wiretapping and eavesdropping laws and require the same consent for recording as any other communication. New York v. Fata, 559 N.Y.S.2d 348 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990).

State courts have held that newspapers that published transcripts of an illegally recorded telephone conversation were subject to civil liability when "the newspapers knew they were dealing with recorded conversations between unconsenting parties." Natoli v. Sullivan, 606 N.Y.S.2d 504 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oswego County 1993), aff'd, 616 N.Y.S.2d 318 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

North Carolina

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287: It is a Class H felony to intercept or disclose the contents of a wire, oral or electronic communication without the consent of at least one party to the communication, The statute defines wire communications to exclude the radio portion of a cordless telephone call that is transmitted between a cordless telephone handset and base unit. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287.

In addition, communications transmitted in a manner accessible to the general public, radio transmissions of aircrafts, ships or vehicles, and law enforcement radio communications, can be legally intercepted.

Violations of the law can be punished by imprisonment for up to 10 years and a fine. Civil liability is expressly authorized for actual damages, $100 per day of violation or $1,000 — whichever is greater. Punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs also can be recovered. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-296.

North Dakota

N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02: Anyone who is a party to a communication, or who has obtained prior consent from someone who is a party to the communication, may legally record or disclose the contents of any wire or oral communication as long as they do not have criminal or tortious intent. Recording or disclosing the contents of a communication without one party's consent or with criminal or tortious intent is a felony carrying a maximum penalty of a $5,000 fine and imprisonment for five years. N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-32-01.

OHIO

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.52: Intercepting, recording or disclosing the contents of a wire, oral or electronic communication if a person is a participant, or has obtained the consent of at least one participant, is legal unless it is accompanied by a criminal or tortious intent.

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.51. The Ohio Supreme Court has held that prisoners do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their communications, for purposes of the wiretapping law. State v. Robb, 723 N.E.2d 1019 (Ohio 2000).

Illegal interceptions are felonies and also carry potential civil liability for the greater of actual damages, $200 per day of violation or $10,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation expenses. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.65.

The recording of cordless telephone conversations picked up, initially inadvertently, through a baby monitor without the consent of any party to the conversations was found to be an illegal interception of both an oral and wire communication by the state's highest court in 1994. Ohio v. Bidinost, 644 N.E.2d 318 (Ohio 1994).

Ohio has an anti-voyeurism law that prohibits surreptitiously invading a person's privacy for sexual purposes. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2907.08.

Oklahoma

Okla. Stat. tit. 13, § 176.4: Anyone who is a party to a wire, oral or electronic communication or who has obtained consent from a party can lawfully record or disclose the contents of that communication, so long as he does not do so in furtherance of a criminal act.

Unlawful recording or disclosure is a felony punishable by a fine of not less than $5,000 and jail time not to exceed five years. Okla. Stat. tit. 13, § 176.3.

Oklahoma law also makes it a misdemeanor to secretly loiter about a building with intent to hear discourse therein and repeat or publish it. Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1202.

Oregon

Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 165.535, 165.540: It is illegal to obtain or divulge a telecommunication or radio communication, unless one is a party or has obtained consent from at least one party to the conversation. It is illegal to obtain or divulge an oral communication unless all parties to the communication are informed that their conversation is being obtained. Certain enumerated exceptions apply. Violations are punishable by a maximum sentence of $5000 or one year in jail.

Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.543: It is also a misdemeanor to intercept a wire or oral communication where one is not a party to the communication, and none of the parties to the communication have consented.

The state's highest court ruled in1996 that interception, without consent of any of the parties, of the radio portion of a cordless telephone call through use of a police "scanner" is illegal under Oregon's wiretapping laws. Oregon v. Carston, 913 P.2d 709 (Or. 1996).

Using a hidden camera to record another person "in a state of nudity" without consent when the person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy is a misdemeanor. Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.700.

Pennsylvania

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 5703, 5704: It is a felony to intercept any wire, oral or electronic communication without the consent of all participants. It also is a felony to disclose or use the contents of a communication when there is reason to know those contents were obtained through an illegal interception.

A trial court has held that a communication protected by the legislation is one in which there is an expectation that it will not be recorded by any electronic device, rather than one in which there is a general expectation of privacy. Thus, the fact that a participant may believe he will have to reveal the contents of a communication, or that other parties may repeat the contents, does not necessarily mean that he would have expected that it would be recorded, and it is the expectation that the communication would not be recorded that triggers the wiretapping law's protections. Pennsylvania v. McIvor, 670 A.2d 697 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996), petition for appeal denied, 692 A.2d 564 (Pa. 1997).

Anyone whose communication has been unlawfully intercepted can recover actual damages in the amount of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater, and also can recover punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney fees. 18 Pa. Const. Stat.§ 5725.

A person commits a misdemeanor if he views, photographs or films another person in a state of full or partial nudity without consent, under circumstances where the nude person has an expectation of privacy.18 Pa. Const. Stat.§ 7507.1.

Rhode Island

R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21: State law expressly allows the recording and disclosure of the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication by a party to the communication or with the prior consent of one of the parties, so long as no criminal or tortious purpose exists.

Illegal recording, or disclosing with reason to know of the illegal recording, carries a criminal penalty of not more than five years in prison, but no penalty can be imposed if the contents of the intercepted communication have become "common knowledge or public information." Civil liability is authorized for actual damages, $100 for each day of violation or $1,000 — whichever is greater. Punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs also are authorized. R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-13.

The state's highest court has expressly recognized that the law allows the recording of conversations with the consent of one party only. Pulawski v. Blais, 506 A.2d 76 (R.I. 1986). The Supreme Court of Rhode Island has stated that Rhode Island's wiretapping laws should be interpreted more strictly than the federal wiretapping statute "in the interest of giving the full measure of protection to an individual's privacy." State v. O'Brien, 774 A.2d 89 (R.I. 2001).

South Carolina

S.C. Code Ann. §§ 17-30-20, 17-30-30: It is a felony to intercept, disclose or use a wire, electronic or oral communication, unless it is done with the consent of at least one party to the communication.

Anyone whose communication has been unlawfully intercepted can recover actual damages in the amount of $500 per day of violation or $25,000, whichever is greater, and also can recover punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney fees. S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-135.

Another South Carolina statute makes it a misdemeanor to eavesdrop or be a "Peeping Tom" on the premises of another. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-470. The term "Peeping Tom" includes using video or audio equipment to invade the privacy of others. However, the statute does not apply to bona fide news gathering activities. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-470(E)(5).

An intermediate appellate court held that the "Peeping Tom" statute was not applicable to newspaper reporters who attempted to overhear city council proceedings during a closed executive session because the reporters were on public property — not the premises of another — and did nothing "to enable them to overhear what was going on in the executive session other than to wait in the place provided as a waiting room for reporters and other members of the public." Neither the overhearing, nor the publication of anything overheard, violated the South Carolina statute. Herald Publishing Co. v. Barnwell, 351 S.E.2d 878 (S.C. App. 1986).

South Dakota

S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35A-20: It is a felony to intercept or record any wire or oral communication unless the person recording is a sender or receiver of the wire communication or has obtained the consent of either the sender or receiver, or unless the person recording is present during the oral communication or has obtained the consent of one party to the oral communication.

Generally, the consent of one participant in any communication to the recording removes it from the type of interception prohibited under the South Dakota wiretapping statute. South Dakota v. Braddock, 452 N.W.2d 785 (S.D. 1990); Midwest Motor Sports, Inc. v. Arctic Cat Sales, Inc., 144 F. Supp.2d 1147 (D. S.D. 2001).

Using a hidden camera in a "private place" without consent is a misdemeanor. S.D. Codified Laws § 22-21-1. A "private place" is a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from intrusion or surveillance, but not a place to which the public has access. S.D. Codified Laws § 22-1-2.

Tennessee

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-601: A person who is a party to a wire, oral or electronic communication, or who has obtained the consent of at least one party, can lawfully record a communication and divulge the contents of the recorded communication unless he has a criminal or tortious purpose for doing so. Violations are punishable as felonies with jail sentences of between two and 12 years and fines not exceeding $5,000. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-602, 40-35-111.

Anyone whose communications have been unlawfully intercepted can sue to recover the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation or $10,000, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-603.

Recording or disseminating a communication carried out through a cellular or cordless telephone, or disseminating the contents with knowledge of their illegal origin, without the consent of at least one party, can be punished as a felony with a potential prison sentence of between one and six years and a fine not to exceed $3,000. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-604, 40-35-111.

It is a misdemeanor to photograph, film or observe a person without consent where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, when the photographing, filming or viewing "would offend or embarrass an ordinary person" and is done for sexual purposes. Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-605, 39-13-607. Dissemination of a photograph or videotape taken in violation of these provisions is a felony. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-605(2).

Texas

Texas Penal Code § 16.02: So long as a wire, oral or electronic communication — including the radio portion of any cordless telephone call — is not recorded for a criminal or tortious purpose, anyone who is a party to the communication, or who has the consent of a party, can lawfully record the communication and disclose its contents.

Unlawful recording of a conversation, or disclosure of its contents with reason to know of the illegal interception, is a felony punishable by two to 20 years in prison and a fine not to exceed $10,000. Texas Penal Code § 12.33. A civil cause of action is expressly authorized for unlawful interception or disclosure. Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.002. The plaintiff may be entitled to $10,000 for each occurrence, actual damages in excess of $10,000, punitive damages and attorney fees and costs. Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.004.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans (5th Cir.) held in 2000 that a television station and reporter who had been given illegally obtained tapes of telephone conversations, but who had not participated in the illegal recording, could nonetheless be held civilly liable under the federal and Texas wiretapping statutes. Peavy v. WFAA-TV, Inc., 221 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2000). The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court along with two other cases raising similar issues. The Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas case but decided in one of the other cases, Bartnicki v. Vopper, that media defendants could not be held liable for publishing information of public concern that was obtained unlawfully by a source where the media were blameless in the illegal interception. Following the Bartnicki decision, the parties in the Peavy case settled out of court.

Utah

Utah Code Ann. § 77-23a-4: An individual legally can record or disclose the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication to which he is a party, or when at least one participant has consented to the recording, unless the person has a criminal or tortious purpose in making the recording.

Unlawful interception of communications, including disclosure of the contents of a communication with reason to know of the illegal origin, is a felony — except that when the communication consists of the radio portion of a cellular telephone call, it is a misdemeanor. Civil liability for unlawful interception can include the greater of actual damages, mandatory damages ranging from $50 to $1,000 depending on whether it is a first or subsequent offense, $100 per day of violation or $10,000. Utah Code Ann. § 77-23a-11 (1999).

Installing a hidden camera or audio recorder to tape a person in a "private place" without consent is a misdemeanor. Utah Code Ann. § 76-9-402. A "private place" is a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from intrusion or surveillance. Utah Code Ann. § 76-9-401.

Vermont

There is no legislation specifically addressing interception of communications in Vermont, but the state's highest court has held that surreptitious electronic monitoring of communications in a person's home is an unlawful invasion of privacy. Vermont v. Geraw, 795 A.2d 1219 (Vt. 2002); Vermont v. Blow, 602 A.2d 552 (Vt. 1991).

The state's highest court, however, also has refused to find the overhearing of a conversation in a parking lot unlawful because that conversation was "subject to the eyes and ears of passersby." Vermont v. Brooks, 601 A.2d 963 (Vt. 1991).

Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030: All parties generally must consent to the interception or recording of any private communication, whether conducted by telephone, telegraph, radio or face-to-face, to comply with state law. The all-party consent requirement can be satisfied if "one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation, in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted." In addition, if the conversation is to be recorded, the requisite announcement must be recorded as well.

Moreover, an employee of a news organization engaged in newsgathering is deemed to have the requisite consent to record and divulge the contents of conversations "if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers." Anyone speaking to an employee of a news organization who has been deemed to have given consent cannot withdraw that consent after the communication has been made. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030(4).

The Washington statute does not address the legality of divulging the contents of intercepted or recorded communications.

Whether a communication is considered "private" under the statute depends on the factual circumstances. Among the factors considered are the subjective intent of the parties; the reasonableness of their expectation of privacy; the duration and subject matter of the communication; the location of the communication and the presence of third parties; and the relationship between the consenting party and the non-consenting party. State v. Townsend, 57 P.2d 255 (Wash. 2002). A person who sends e-mail to another person has consented to the "recording" of that e-mail. Id.

Any violation of the statute is a misdemeanor. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.080. Civil liability is expressly authorized for actual damages, including mental pain and suffering, or $100 per day of violation — but no more than $1,000 total based on this daily calculation. Attorney fees and litigation costs also can be recovered. Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.060.

West Virginia

W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3: Recording a wire, oral or electronic communication, or disclosing its contents, is not a violation of West Virginia law when the person recording is a party to the communication or has obtained consent from one of the parties, as long as the recording is not accompanied by a criminal or tortious intent.

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," W. Va. Code § 62-1D-2. In West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources v. Wright, the West Virginia Supreme Court held that a woman whose children's screams could be heard by neighbors nevertheless had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her home, for purposes of the wiretapping law. 453 S.E.2d 646 (1994).

Recording any such communication, or disclosing its contents with knowledge of the illegal interception, is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than five years and a fine of not more than $10,000. An individual whose communications have been unlawfully intercepted can recover civil damages in the amount of actual damages, but not less than $100 per day of violation, along with punitive damages, attorney fees and litigation costs. W. Va. Code § 62-1D-12.

Wisconsin

Wis. Stat. § 968.31: A person who is a party to a wire, electronic or oral communication, or who has obtained prior consent from one party, can legally record and divulge the contents of the communication, unless he does so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.

Feb. 1, 2003, the punishment for recording or disclosing the contents of a conversation without the appropriate consent is imprisonment for up to six years and/or a criminal fine of up to $10,000. Wisconsin law expressly authorizes civil damages for violations and allows recovery of the greater of actual damages, $100 for each day of violation or $1,000, along with punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney fees.

Wyoming

Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-702: It is legal for a party to a wire, oral or electronic communication to record that communication, and it is legal for anyone to record with the consent of one of the parties to a communication, unless the communication is intercepted to further a criminal or tortious purpose.

Recording communications, or disclosing their contents with reason to believe they were obtained illegally, is a felony punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 and imprisonment for not more than five years. Violations also create the potential for civil liability for actual damages or $1,000 for each day of violation, whichever is more. Punitive damages, litigation costs and attorney fees can be recovered as well. Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-710.