Georgia
Georgia Video Recording Laws: All-Party Consent in Private Places (2026)
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. · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

In Georgia, video recording in public spaces requires no consent, but recording activities in private places requires consent from every person observed under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2). Audio recording follows a different, one-party consent standard. Silent video is legal in public; private-place video recording without all-party consent is a felony.
Georgia's video recording laws operate on a fundamentally different standard than its audio recording rules. While the state follows one-party consent for audio recording, video recording of activities in private places requires consent from all persons observed. This all-party consent requirement catches many people off guard, especially those who assume Georgia's one-party consent reputation applies to all forms of recording.
This guide covers the complete framework for video recording in Georgia, including what you can film in public, what requires consent in private spaces, how the law treats distribution of recordings, and the overlapping criminal statutes that can turn a single act of unauthorized filming into multiple felony charges.
The Core Statute: O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2)
What the Law Prohibits
The centerpiece of Georgia's video recording restrictions is O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2). This paragraph makes it unlawful for any person, through the use of any device, 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.
Three elements must be present for a violation:
- Use of a device. This includes cameras, smartphones, drones, hidden cameras, body cameras, or any technology capable of capturing images or video.
- Without consent of all persons observed. Every person whose activities are captured must agree. Consent from just one person is not enough.
- Activities in a private place out of public view. The recording must target activities happening in a location where the subjects have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
How This Differs From Audio Rules
The distinction between Georgia's audio and video consent standards is one of the most important features of the state's recording law framework.
| Feature | Audio Recording | Video in Private Places |
|---|---|---|
| Consent Standard | One-party (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66) | All-party (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2)) |
| Can you record secretly? | Yes, if you are a participant | No, not in private places |
| Public spaces | No consent needed | No consent needed |
| Penalty for violation | Felony, 1-5 years | Felony, 1-5 years |
The Georgia Supreme Court has confirmed that the all-party consent requirement for visual recordings in private places is distinct from the one-party consent rule governing audio. This means a single recording device that captures both audio and video operates under two different legal standards simultaneously.
Defining "Private Place" Under Georgia Law

What Qualifies as a Private Place
Georgia courts interpret "private place" broadly. A private place is any location where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and where their activities are out of public view. Common examples include:
- Homes and apartments. Bedrooms, bathrooms, living rooms, and any interior space.
- Hotel rooms. Guests have a strong expectation of privacy in their rooms.
- Offices with closed doors. Private offices where conversations and activities are shielded from public observation.
- Changing rooms and fitting rooms. Retail dressing rooms, gym locker rooms, and similar spaces.
- Medical examination rooms. Patients have a reasonable expectation of privacy during medical appointments.
- Vehicles. The interior of a car, especially when parked in a private location, can qualify.
What Does NOT Qualify as a Private Place
Locations that are open to public view generally do not qualify as private places:
- Public streets, sidewalks, and parks
- Government buildings open to the public
- Retail store shopping floors
- Restaurant dining areas
- Parking lots
- Stadiums, concert venues, and public event spaces
The key factor is whether the person being recorded could reasonably expect that their activities would not be observed by others. If the activity takes place where anyone passing by could see it, the location is unlikely to qualify as a "private place" under the statute.
Video Recording in Public Spaces

Your Rights to Film in Public
Georgia places no general prohibition on video recording in public spaces. You are free to:
- Film on public streets, sidewalks, and in parks
- Record public meetings and government proceedings under the Open Meetings Act (O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1)
- Use dashcams in your vehicle on public roads
- Film protests, demonstrations, and public events
- Record interactions with government officials in public
- Take photographs and video of buildings, landmarks, and scenery visible from public spaces
Reasonable Limitations
While public recording is broadly protected, certain restrictions apply:
- Private property rules. Property owners can prohibit recording on their premises. A mall, for example, can have a no-filming policy even though the public is invited in.
- Harassment and stalking. Using video recording as a tool to follow, harass, or intimidate someone can violate Georgia's stalking statute (O.C.G.A. § 16-5-90).
- Obstructing government operations. You cannot interfere with police or other government officials while recording.
- Court restrictions. Recording inside Georgia courtrooms typically requires the judge's permission.
Distribution of Video Recordings

O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(6): The Distribution Prohibition
Georgia law does not just prohibit making unauthorized video recordings in private places. It also criminalizes the distribution of such recordings. Under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(6), it is unlawful for any person to sell, give, or distribute any photograph, videotape, or record of the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view without the consent of all persons observed.
This means that even if someone else made the recording, distributing it without all-party consent is a separate felony. Sharing an unauthorized private recording on social media, sending it via text message, uploading it to a website, or providing it to a third party all constitute distribution under this statute.
Consent for Distribution
The consent requirement for distribution mirrors the consent requirement for recording: every person whose activities appear in the recording must agree to its distribution. Consent to be recorded does not automatically equal consent to have the recording distributed. If someone agreed to be filmed in a private setting but did not agree to have that footage shared, distributing it may still violate the statute.
Georgia's Overlapping Video Privacy Statutes
The Peeping Tom Law: O.C.G.A. § 16-11-61
Georgia's Peeping Tom statute predates modern recording technology but applies to video surveillance. The law makes it unlawful for any person to be a "peeping Tom" on or about the premises of another, or to go upon the premises of another for the purpose of spying upon or invading the privacy of the persons spied upon. A peeping Tom is defined as a person who peeps through windows, doors, or other like places for the purpose of invading another's privacy.
This statute is a felony carrying 1 to 5 years in prison. Importantly, the state does not need to prove that the spying was successful. The act of going to someone's property with the intent to spy is enough for a conviction.
The Voyeurism Statute: O.C.G.A. § 16-11-91
O.C.G.A. § 16-11-91 targets a specific form of invasive video recording. The statute prohibits using any device to surreptitiously photograph or record someone underneath or through their clothing to view intimate body parts or undergarments. Commonly known as "upskirting" or "downblousing," this offense is a felony carrying 1 to 5 years in prison and fines up to $10,000.
This statute applies regardless of whether the recording happens in a public or private place. Even if you are on a public sidewalk, using a hidden camera to photograph underneath someone's clothing violates this law.
The 2022 Health Care Facility Amendment
In 2022, Georgia amended O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62 through SB 539, effective July 1, 2022. The amendment added paragraph (7), making it unlawful to use any device to photograph or record the activities of patients in a health care facility operated by a county board of health without the consent of all patients observed. This provides additional video privacy protections in public health settings.
Video Recording in Specific Settings
Homes and Residential Properties
You can install and operate security cameras on your own property. However, several restrictions apply:
- Cameras must not capture activities in areas where others have a reasonable expectation of privacy (bathrooms, guest bedrooms)
- You cannot point cameras at a neighbor's private spaces
- Hidden cameras in areas where guests expect privacy violate both the Peeping Tom statute and the general recording prohibition
Workplaces
Employers can use video surveillance in common areas of the workplace for legitimate business purposes such as security, theft prevention, and safety monitoring. Cameras are prohibited in bathrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, and other spaces where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Georgia does not have a state-specific workplace surveillance statute, so the general rules of O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62 apply alongside federal standards under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Retail and Commercial Spaces
Businesses can use video surveillance on their commercial premises to protect against theft, monitor customer safety, and document incidents. The key restrictions remain:
- No cameras in restrooms, changing rooms, or fitting rooms
- Signage notifying customers of surveillance is a best practice (though not strictly required by Georgia statute for video-only systems)
- Audio recording through surveillance cameras follows the separate one-party consent rules
Schools
School recording raises additional considerations under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). School security cameras in hallways, cafeterias, and entrances are common and lawful. Recording in classrooms may implicate FERPA if the recordings become education records directly related to identifiable students.
Drones and Aerial Video Recording
Georgia Drone Laws
Georgia does not have a comprehensive drone-specific recording statute, but drone operators must comply with both federal FAA regulations and the state's general video recording laws. Flying a drone equipped with a camera over someone's private property to record their activities could violate O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2) if the activities are in a private place out of public view.
Additionally, using a drone to spy on someone could violate the Peeping Tom statute (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-61) and potentially Georgia's stalking laws if the conduct constitutes a pattern of harassing behavior.
Penalties for Illegal Video Recording
Criminal Penalties
Illegal video recording in Georgia carries serious criminal consequences:
| Statute | Offense | Classification | Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2) | Recording in private place without all-party consent | Felony | 1-5 years prison, up to $10,000 fine |
| O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(6) | Distributing private recordings without consent | Felony | 1-5 years prison, up to $10,000 fine |
| O.C.G.A. § 16-11-61 | Peeping Tom | Felony | 1-5 years prison |
| O.C.G.A. § 16-11-91 | Voyeurism by device | Felony | 1-5 years prison, up to $10,000 fine |
A single act of unauthorized video recording in a private place can result in charges under multiple statutes. For example, using a hidden camera in someone's bathroom could trigger charges under the general recording prohibition, the Peeping Tom statute, and the voyeurism statute.
Civil Liability
Victims of illegal video recording can pursue civil claims for:
- Invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion)
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress
- Federal Wiretap Act damages under 18 U.S.C. § 2520
- Injunctive relief to prevent distribution of recordings
- Punitive damages in cases of willful or malicious conduct
Best Practices for Lawful Video Recording in Georgia
- Always get consent when recording in private places. Verbal or written consent from every person whose activities will be captured satisfies the statute.
- Post signage for security cameras. While not always required, visible signage can establish implied consent and deter privacy claims.
- Keep cameras out of private areas. Never install cameras in bathrooms, bedrooms, changing rooms, or similar spaces.
- Separate audio from video. Remember that audio and video follow different consent rules. If your camera records audio, you need to comply with both standards.
- Do not distribute private recordings. Even if a recording was made lawfully with consent, distributing it without all parties' agreement can be a separate crime.
More Georgia Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
Back to Georgia Recording Laws
More Georgia Recording Topics
More Georgia Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Georgia a one-party or all-party consent state for video recording?
Georgia uses a split standard. Audio recording follows one-party consent under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66. Video recording of activities in private places requires all-party consent under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2). You can freely record video in public spaces where no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Can I record video in a public place in Georgia without consent?
Yes. Georgia has no general prohibition on video recording in public spaces. You can film on public streets, sidewalks, parks, at public events, and during government meetings. The all-party consent requirement applies only to private places out of public view.
What happens if I share a video recorded in a private place without consent?
Distributing a video of someone's activities in a private place without the consent of all persons observed is a separate felony under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(6). This applies even if you did not make the original recording. Penalties include 1 to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
Can I install security cameras in my own home in Georgia?
Yes, but with restrictions. You can install security cameras in common areas of your home and on the exterior. You cannot place cameras in areas where guests have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as bathrooms or guest bedrooms. You also cannot point cameras into your neighbor's private spaces.
What is the penalty for illegal video recording in Georgia?
Illegal video recording in a private place is a felony under O.C.G.A. § 16-11-69, punishable by 1 to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. Additional charges may apply under Georgia's Peeping Tom statute (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-61) and voyeurism statute (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-91), each carrying its own felony penalties.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the distribution-offense citation from O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(4) (which is actually the telephone/telegraph interception paragraph) to the correct § 16-11-62(6) (the paragraph that actually prohibits selling, giving, or distributing recordings of private activities), fixed in all four places it appeared: KeyTakeaways, the dedicated subsection heading and body, the penalties table, and the FAQ.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
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.
Official Code of Georgia Annotated
§ 16-11-62Eavesdropping, surveillance, or intercepting communication which invades privacy of another; divulging private message.In forcecited in 25 of our articles
It shall be unlawful for: (1) Any person in a clandestine manner intentionally to overhear, transmit, or record or attempt to overhear, transmit, or record the private conversation of another which shall originate in any private place; (2) Any person, through the use of any device, without the
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.ga.gov
Cited in 94 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kelley v. State (1998) held OCGA 16-11-62(2) reached a guardian who photographed a nude 16-year-old in the family bathroom, with no exception for family members. Burgeson v. State (1996) held a conversation recorded in a patrol car was not covered, because no reasonable expectation of privacy existed there.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Burgeson v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 1996, 267 Ga. 102)✓Police secretly recorded two arrestees talking in the back of a patrol car. The court held a police car is much like a jail cell, with no reasonable expectation of privacy, so intercepting that conversation did not offend OCGA 16-11-62 and the tape was admissible.
- Kelley v. State (Court of Appeals of Georgia 1998, 233 Ga. App. 244)✓A guardian photographed her 16-year-old niece nude and passed out in the family bathtub. The court held OCGA 16-11-62(2) reaches any person with no family exception, that the film need not be developed, and that a jury could find the bathroom a private place.
- Dobbins v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 1992, 262 Ga. 161)“…th the consent of one of the parties to the conversation. OCGA § 16-11-62 (1) provides that: It shall be unlawf…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 16-11-61Peeping Toms.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to be a "peeping Tom" on or about the premises of another or to go about or upon the premises of another for the purpose of becoming a "peeping Tom." (b) As used in this Code section, the term "peeping Tom" means a person who peeps through windows or doors,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-08-17 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 18 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Smith v. State (Court of Appeals of Georgia 1999, 238 Ga. App. 605)“…A jury found Donald Smith guilty of being a “peeping Tom.” OCGA § 16-11-61. His motion for new trial was denied by…”
- In the Interest of J. G. (Court of Appeals of Georgia 1988, 188 Ga. App. 856)“…appellant had committed the delinquent act of peeping Tom, OCGA § 16-11-61, the sole enumeration of error concerns…”
- Rosenthal v. Hudson (Court of Appeals of Georgia 1987, 183 Ga. App. 712)“…ut a warrant for appellee’s arrest for being a peeping Tom (OCGA § 16-11-61). When that warrant was dismissed by a…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 16-11-66Interception of wire, oral, or electronic communication by party thereto; consent requirements for recording and divulging conversations to which child under 18 years is a party; parental exception.In forcecited in 18 of our articles
(a) Nothing in Code Section 16-11-62 shall prohibit a person from intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception. (b) After obtaining the consent…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at advance.lexis.com
Cited in 43 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Cohen (2017) held OCGA 16-11-66(a) reaches only intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communications, so one party's consent does not authorize secretly video recording others in a private place. Bishop v. State (1999) barred vicarious parental consent under the text in force before the 2000 amendment.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Dobbins v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 1992, 262 Ga. 161)✓An investigator recorded a child's call to the defendant using only her father's consent and no warrant; the Supreme Court held the state had neither an investigation warrant nor valid consent of a party to the call, so the recording and its fruits were inadmissible.
- State v. Cohen (Supreme Court of Georgia 2017, 302 Ga. 616)✓A housekeeper secretly videoed her employer naked at home; the Supreme Court held the one-party-consent rule of OCGA 16-11-66(a) covers only intercepted wire, oral or electronic communications and does not permit video recording without the consent of all observed.
- State v. Madison (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2011, 311 Ga. App. 31)✓A molestation complainant secretly videoed the defendant in his law office; the court read the 16-11-66(a) participant exception to reach section 16-11-62, but found no wire, oral or electronic communication captured, so it affirmed suppression. Cohen overruled that reading.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 16-11-69Penalty for violations of part.In forcecited in 13 of our articles
Except as otherwise provided in subsection (d) of Code Section 16-11-66.1, any person violating any of the provisions of this part shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years or a fine not to exceed…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-08-17 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2019
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rutter v. Rutter (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2012, 316 Ga. App. 894)“…a penal statute, a violation being punishable as a felony. OCGA § 16-11-69. As such, the rule of lenity is a prope…”
- Prophitt v. the State (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2016, 336 Ga. App. 262)“…The crime of invasion of privacy constitutes a felony, see OCGA § 16-11-69, and this Court has previously held tha…”
- Price v. State (Court of Appeals of Georgia 2013, 320 Ga. App. 85)“…rt order. 2 Because Price was convicted of a felony, see OCGA § 16-11-69, and sentenced to five years of confine…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 16-11-91Use or installation of device to film underneath or through an individual's clothing under certain circumstances.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
(a) As used in this Code section, the term: (1) "Device" means an instrument or apparatus used for observing, photographing, videotaping, recording, or transmitting visual images, including but not limited to a camera, photographic equipment, video equipment, mobile phone, or other similar…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-08-17 · Read the full text in our law library
§ 16-5-90Stalking; psychological evaluation.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
(a)(1) A person commits the offense of stalking when he or she follows, places under surveillance, or contacts another person at or about a place or places without the consent of the other person for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other person.…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-26 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gcfv.georgia.gov
Cited in 167 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Chan v. Ellis (2015) held that website commentary directed only to the public is not "contact" under OCGA 16-5-90 (a)(1), which reaches communication aimed at a specific person without consent. Johnson v. State (1994) rejected vagueness and overbreadth challenges, reading "contact" with the harassing and intimidating purpose element.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Chan v. Ellis (Supreme Court of Georgia 2015, 296 Ga. 838)✓A website operator hosted nearly 2,000 posts about a poet, who won a stalking injunction; the court held commentary directed only to the public is not "contact" under OCGA 16-5-90(a)(1), and that she failed to prove any contact was without her consent, so it reversed.
- Johnson v. State (Supreme Court of Georgia 1994, 264 Ga. 590)✓A defendant convicted of misdemeanor stalking and burglary argued OCGA 16-5-90 was vague and overbroad; the court held "contact" is readily understood and the statute reaches only a knowing and willful course of conduct done to harass and intimidate, and it affirmed.
- Troncalli v. Jones (Court of Appeals of Georgia 1999, 237 Ga. App. 10)✓A woman won a jury verdict against a man who touched her breasts at a party, chased her car and made a throat cutting gesture; the court held OCGA 16-5-90 defines a crime and creates no private tort of stalking, so the general verdict could not stand and was reversed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 50-14-1Meetings to be open to public; limitation on action to contest agency action; recording; notice of time and place; access to minutes; teleconference.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
(a) As used in this chapter, the term: (1) "Agency" means: (A) Every state department, agency, board, bureau, office, commission, public corporation, and authority; (B) Every county, municipal corporation, school district, or other political subdivision of this state; (C) Every department, agenc
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.ga.gov
Cited in 98 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- WILLIAMS v. DEKALB COUNTY (Supreme Court of Georgia 2020, 308 Ga. 265)“…the commissioners for violating the Open Meetings Act, see OCGA § 50-14-1 et seq., before passing the salary ord…”
- Lue, Mayor v. Eady (Supreme Court of Georgia 2015)“…ries: alleged violations of the Georgia Open Meetings Act, OCGA § 50-14-1, et seq. (“Act”); alleged violations o…”
- Red & Black Publishing Co. v. Board of Regents (Supreme Court of Georgia 1993, 262 Ga. 848)“…q., but not to the proceedings under the Open Meetings Act, OCGA § 50-14-1 et seq. The trial court also granted de…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 418 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 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 115 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.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62 - Eavesdropping and Surveillance(law.justia.com)
- O.C.G.A. § 16-11-61 - Peeping Tom Statute(law.justia.com)
- O.C.G.A. § 16-11-91 - Voyeurism by Device (upskirting)(law.justia.com)
- State v. Cohen, 302 Ga. 616, 807 S.E.2d 861 (2017) - audio/video distinction
- Georgia Open Meetings Act(law.georgia.gov).gov
- Georgia SB 539 (2022) - O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(7)(gov.georgia.gov).gov
- Georgia AG FAQ on Open Government(law.georgia.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 - Electronic Communications Privacy Act(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2520 - Recovery of Civil Damages for Federal Wiretap Violations(law.cornell.edu)