Kentucky
Kentucky Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 9, 2026. · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Kentucky permits security cameras on your own property without a permit or notification requirement. Video-only cameras are legal under general privacy principles; adding audio recording triggers the one-party consent rule under KRS 526.020. Pointing cameras at private areas where guests or neighbors have a reasonable expectation of privacy violates KRS 531.090.
Kentucky does not have a dedicated security camera statute. Instead, the legality of security cameras is governed by general privacy principles, the eavesdropping laws in KRS Chapter 526, the voyeurism statute in KRS 531.090, and property rights. This guide covers the rules for installing and operating security cameras at homes, businesses, and in HOA-governed communities in Kentucky.
Home Security Camera Laws in Kentucky
Your Right to Protect Your Property
Kentucky homeowners have a broad right to install security cameras on their own property. Common residential installations include:
- Doorbell cameras (Ring, Nest, Arlo, etc.)
- Exterior cameras covering driveways, porches, and yards
- Interior cameras for home security monitoring
- Garage and outbuilding cameras
- Pool and backyard surveillance
- Baby monitors and nanny cameras
Kentucky law does not require you to register security cameras, obtain a permit, or notify neighbors about exterior surveillance.
Restrictions on Residential Cameras
While you have broad rights to install cameras on your property, there are important limits:
Do not aim cameras at areas where neighbors have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes:
- A neighbor's bedroom or bathroom windows
- Enclosed patios or courtyards designed for privacy
- Hot tubs or pools with privacy fencing
- Any area where a reasonable person would expect not to be observed
Do not install cameras in areas where guests have privacy expectations. If you have guests or renters, cameras in bathrooms, guest bedrooms, or changing areas violate KRS 531.090 (voyeurism) and could result in criminal charges.
Audio recording triggers eavesdropping laws. If your security cameras record audio, the one-party consent rule under KRS 526.020 applies. A camera that continuously records audio conversations of people on your porch or in your yard (conversations you are not part of) could constitute eavesdropping.
Nanny Cameras in Kentucky
Kentucky parents can use hidden cameras (nanny cameras) to monitor caregivers in their homes. Key considerations:
- Video-only nanny cameras are generally legal in common areas of your home
- Audio-recording nanny cameras trigger KRS 526.020 one-party consent requirements
- Cameras should not be placed in bathrooms or areas where the caregiver has a reasonable expectation of privacy
- Kentucky employment law does not require you to disclose home camera monitoring to domestic employees, though doing so can prevent disputes
Doorbell Cameras
Doorbell cameras like Ring, Nest Hello, and Arlo Video Doorbell are widely used in Kentucky. These devices are generally legal because:
- They record areas visible from public spaces (your front door and approach)
- You typically interact with visitors through the doorbell, satisfying one-party consent for audio
- The field of view primarily covers your own property
Audio considerations: Many doorbell cameras have two-way audio. When you interact with a visitor through the doorbell speaker, you are a participant in the conversation, satisfying one-party consent. However, if the camera passively records audio conversations between visitors when you are not communicating through the device, the eavesdropping analysis becomes more complex.
Business Security Camera Laws in Kentucky

Employer CCTV Rights
Kentucky businesses have broad authority to install security cameras for legitimate purposes including:
- Theft prevention and deterrence
- Employee safety monitoring
- Liability protection
- Regulatory compliance
- Building access control
- Cash register and transaction monitoring
Permitted Camera Locations
Businesses can place cameras in:
- Retail floors and customer areas
- Warehouses and storage areas
- Parking lots and loading docks
- Building entrances, exits, and hallways
- Manufacturing and production areas
- Office common spaces
Prohibited Camera Locations
Cameras are prohibited in areas where employees or customers have a reasonable expectation of privacy:
- Restrooms
- Locker rooms and changing areas
- Designated lactation rooms
- Fitting rooms and dressing rooms
- Private offices (more nuanced, depends on the expectation of privacy)
Installing cameras in these prohibited areas may constitute voyeurism under KRS 531.090 and could expose the business to criminal charges and civil lawsuits.
Audio on Business Security Cameras
Many modern commercial security systems include audio recording capabilities. When business cameras record audio:
- The eavesdropping laws in KRS Chapter 526 apply
- Continuous audio recording of customer or employee conversations without a participating party's consent may be illegal
- Posting a visible and audible notice ("Audio and video recording in progress") can help establish implied consent, though its legal sufficiency under Kentucky's eavesdropping statute has not been definitively tested. Victims of unlawful audio recording by a security camera can pursue claims under the federal civil remedy in 18 U.S.C. 2520 (actual damages, statutory damages of $100/day with a $10,000 minimum, punitive damages, and attorney fees) and the Kentucky common-law intrusion upon seclusion tort recognized in McCall v. Courier-Journal, 623 S.W.2d 882 (Ky. 1981). KRS 526.080 addresses device forfeiture only and does not provide a private civil cause of action
Employee Notification
Kentucky does not have a specific statute requiring businesses to notify employees about security cameras. However, best practices include:
- Including surveillance disclosures in employee handbooks
- Posting visible signage in monitored areas
- Addressing monitoring during employee onboarding
- Providing written notice of any changes to monitoring practices
HOA and Community Security Camera Rules

HOA Authority Over Cameras
Homeowners associations in Kentucky can regulate security camera placement through their governing documents, including:
- Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): May limit camera placement, size, visibility, or quantity
- Architectural guidelines: May require approval before installing exterior cameras
- Rules and regulations: May address specific camera types, mounting locations, or aesthetic requirements
Kentucky's property title chapter (KRS Chapter 381), which includes the Kentucky Condominium Act (KRS 381.9101-381.9207), and the provisions governing planned communities provide the legal framework for HOA authority. HOAs can enforce reasonable restrictions as long as they follow their own governing documents and procedures.
Common HOA Camera Restrictions
Typical HOA camera rules in Kentucky may include:
- Cameras must be mounted in approved colors that match the building exterior
- Cameras cannot be visible from the street or common areas (varies by HOA)
- Camera placement requires architectural review committee approval
- Cameras cannot be aimed at neighboring units or common areas
- Maximum number of exterior cameras per unit
Disputing HOA Camera Rules
If you disagree with your HOA's camera restrictions, options include:
- Requesting a variance or exception from the architectural review committee
- Proposing an amendment to the governing documents
- Attending HOA board meetings to advocate for policy changes
- Consulting a real estate attorney about the enforceability of specific restrictions
- Filing a complaint with the Kentucky Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division if the HOA is acting beyond its authority
Neighbor Disputes Over Security Cameras

Common Complaints
Security camera disputes between Kentucky neighbors typically involve:
- Cameras aimed at a neighbor's windows, doors, or private areas
- Cameras with audio that capture neighbor conversations
- Bright infrared lights or flashing indicators that disturb neighbors
- The perception of surveillance creating a hostile environment
- Cameras positioned to monitor a shared boundary area
Legal Options for Resolving Disputes
If a neighbor's security camera is causing concern, you can:
- Talk to your neighbor. Many camera disputes result from poor placement rather than malicious intent. A conversation may resolve the issue.
- Send a written request. Document your concern in writing and keep a copy.
- Contact local code enforcement. Some Kentucky municipalities have ordinances regarding camera placement or nuisance lighting.
- File a civil lawsuit. If the camera invades your reasonable expectation of privacy, you may have a claim for intrusion upon seclusion.
- Seek a restraining order. If the camera is part of a pattern of harassment, you may qualify for an interpersonal protective order under KRS 456.060.
What You Cannot Do
Even if you believe a neighbor's camera is aimed inappropriately, you cannot:
- Damage or destroy the camera (criminal mischief under KRS 512.020 or KRS 512.030)
- Obstruct the camera by placing objects on your neighbor's property
- Trespass on your neighbor's property to reposition or disable the camera
- Use a laser or other device to disable the camera
Security Camera Footage as Evidence
Admissibility
Security camera footage is regularly admitted as evidence in Kentucky courts. Under the Kentucky Rules of Evidence, the footage must be:
- Authenticated through testimony about the camera system, its operation, and the chain of custody
- Relevant to the matter at hand
- Not unfairly prejudicial relative to its probative value
Common Uses of Security Footage in Legal Cases
Security camera recordings are commonly used in:
- Burglary, robbery, and theft prosecutions
- Personal injury and slip-and-fall claims
- Automobile accident liability disputes
- Workers' compensation cases
- Domestic violence and protective order proceedings
- Vandalism and property damage cases
- Insurance claims and fraud investigations
Law Enforcement Access to Private Security Footage
Kentucky law enforcement can access your security camera footage through:
- Your voluntary consent: You can choose to share footage with police
- A search warrant: Obtained from a judge upon a showing of probable cause
- A subpoena: In connection with a criminal investigation or court proceeding
- Exigent circumstances: In emergency situations involving imminent danger
You are not required to turn over footage to police without a warrant or subpoena (unless you consent voluntarily). The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, including of digital recordings.
Smart Home Integration and Privacy
Cloud Storage Considerations
Many Kentucky residents use cloud-based security cameras that store footage on remote servers (Ring, Nest, Arlo, Wyze, etc.). Privacy considerations include:
- Cloud providers may be subject to federal law enforcement requests for stored footage
- 18 U.S.C. 2701, part of the Stored Communications Act, makes it a federal offense to access stored communications like cloud-stored recordings without authorization; separate provisions of the Act, not this section, govern how law enforcement compels providers to disclose that stored data
- Review your camera provider's privacy policy and terms of service
- Consider local storage options if cloud privacy concerns you
Ring Neighbors and Community Sharing
Amazon's Ring app includes a "Neighbors" feature that allows users to share clips from their cameras. Kentucky residents using this feature should:
- Only share footage you have the right to share
- Be mindful of what is visible in shared clips (license plates, identifiable neighbors)
- Review Ring's privacy settings and sharing preferences
- Understand that shared footage may be accessible to law enforcement through Amazon's law enforcement partnership programs
Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act
Congress enacted the TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed into law May 19, 2025, which creates a federal cause of action for victims of nonconsensual intimate image sharing (NCII), including AI-generated deepfakes. Its platform takedown-enforcement requirements became operative one year later, on May 19, 2026. Key provisions:
- Requires online platforms to remove NCII within 48 hours of receiving a valid takedown notice
- Creates federal criminal liability for publishing NCII with intent to harm
- Applies to both real and AI-generated (synthetic) intimate images
- Victims can pursue removal from platforms without court orders
For Kentucky residents, the TAKE IT DOWN Act supplements (but does not replace) KRS 531.120 on nonconsensual image distribution. Kentucky's SB 4 (2025) (Acts Ch. 66, signed Mar. 24, 2025) addresses AI-generated synthetic media only in the election context, through the civil cause of action created at KRS 117.322; it does not create a general state-law NCII deepfake remedy.
More Kentucky Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism and Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant Recording | Dashcam Laws | School Recording | Medical Recording
Back to Kentucky Recording Laws
More Kentucky Recording Topics
See Also
- Kentucky Surveillance Camera Laws covers home, HOA, neighbor, workplace, and landlord camera rules in Kentucky.
More Kentucky Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I need a permit to install security cameras in Kentucky?
No. Kentucky does not require a permit, registration, or license to install security cameras on your own property. However, your HOA may require architectural review approval, and local building codes may apply to hardwired installations that require electrical work.
Can my security camera record my neighbor's property in Kentucky?
Your camera can capture incidental views of neighboring property that are visible from your own property or from public areas. However, you should not aim cameras directly at areas where your neighbor has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as bedroom windows, bathrooms, or enclosed private spaces.
Can security cameras record audio in Kentucky?
Video-only security cameras have no specific restrictions in Kentucky. Adding audio recording triggers the eavesdropping laws in KRS Chapter 526. To legally record audio, you must be a participant in the conversation or have consent from at least one party. Passive audio recording of conversations you are not part of may be illegal.
Can police access my security camera footage without a warrant in Kentucky?
Police can only access your security footage without a warrant if you voluntarily consent to share it, or in exigent circumstances involving imminent danger. Otherwise, law enforcement needs a warrant or subpoena. You are not obligated to share footage without legal process.
Can my HOA ban security cameras in Kentucky?
HOAs can regulate the placement, size, and appearance of security cameras through their governing documents, but a complete ban may be difficult to enforce, especially for interior cameras. Review your CC&Rs and architectural guidelines for specific restrictions that apply to your community.
Updates
Corrected the TAKE IT DOWN Act's signing date (May 19, 2025, not 2026) and repointed four misrouted Kentucky statute citation links (KRS 456.060, KRS Chapter 381, KRS 512.020, KRS 512.030) to their correct pages.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Corrected the election-deepfake citation from KRS 42.731 (the unrelated state-agency AI governance committee statute) to KRS 117.322, SB 4's actual synthetic-media-in-elections provision.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected a mischaracterization of 18 U.S.C. 2701, which criminalizes unauthorized access to stored communications rather than setting out law enforcement's access procedures.
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.
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 526: EAVESDROPPING AND RELATED OFFENSES
§ 526.020EavesdroppingIn forcecited in 20 of our articles
(1) A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he intentionally uses any device to eavesdrop, whether or not he is present at the time. (2) Eavesdropping is a Class D felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Basham v. Commonwealth (1984) held wiretap evidence obtained under a valid federal order is admissible in Kentucky, though it noted no state law authorizes electronic surveillance by Kentucky police. Brock v. Commonwealth (1997) held the exclusionary rule reaches only constitutional violations, so a private recording was not suppressed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Springer v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 1999, 998 S.W.2d 439)✓A neighbor used a police scanner to tape cordless calls from the victim's home, and detectives played it to induce Eades to confess; the court held the federal wiretap act and Kentucky's eavesdropping statutes did not bar using it against someone who was not a party to the calls.
- Stringer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Kentucky Supreme Court 2004, 151 S.W.3d 781)✓Wal-Mart secretly ran about forty hours of audio and video surveillance of employees in a store claims area; the court did not decide whether that violated KRS 526.020, holding instead that the employees' statutory claim failed for lack of damages caused by the recording itself.
- Brock v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 1997, 947 S.W.2d 24)✓Brock, claiming self-defense, was kept from using a private tape of the victim's mother saying her son had gone to kill him; the court held that even assuming the tape violated KRS 526.020, the exclusionary rule reaches only state action, so suppression was not required.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kentucky Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Kentucky Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use, Kentucky Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Disputes
§ 526.080ForfeitureIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
Any electronic, mechanical or other device designed or commonly used for eavesdropping which is possessed or used in violation of this chapter, is forfeited to the state and shall be disposed of in accordance with KRS 500.090.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Also relied on in: Kentucky Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights, Kentucky AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 117: REGULATION OF ELECTIONS
§ 117.322Action against use of synthetic media in electioneering communication -- Remedies -- Penalties -- Defense -- ExceptionsIn forcecited in 10 of our articles
(1) (a) Any candidate for any elected office whose appearance, action, or speech is altered through the use of synthetic media in an electioneering communication may seek injunctive or other equitable relief against the sponsor of the electioneering communication requiring that the communication includes a disclosure that is clear and conspicuous and included in, or alongside and associated with, the content in a manner that is likely to be noticed by the user. (b) The court may award a prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs. This paragraph does not limit or preclude a plaintiff from securing or recovering any other available remedy. (2) In any action brought under subsection (1) of this section: (a) The plaintiff shall: 1. File in Circuit Court of the county in which he or she resides; and 2. Bear the burden of establishing the use of synthetic media by clear and convincing evidence; and (b) The following shall not be liable except as provided in subsection (3) of this section: 1. The medium disseminating the electioneering communication; and 2. An advertising sales representative of such medium.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-09 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Also relied on in: Kentucky Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Deepfake & AI Voice Cloning Laws by State (2026), Kentucky Video Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Legal Limits
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 381: TITLE TO PROPERTY AND RESTRICTIONS ON USE, OWNERSHIP, AND ALIENATION
§ 381.9101Short title for KRS 381.9101 to 381.9207In force
KRS 381.9101 to 381.9207 shall be known and may be cited as the Kentucky Condominium Act.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2013
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Steenrod v. Louisville Yacht Club Ass'n (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 2013, 417 S.W.3d 234)“…e Kentucky Legislature passed the Kentucky Condominium Act (KRS 381.9101 — KRS *237 881.9207) effective January…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 456: CIVIL ORDERS OF PROTECTION
§ 456.060Ruling on petition for interpersonal protective order -- Duration of orderIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) Following a hearing ordered under KRS 456.040, if a court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that dating violence and abuse, sexual assault, or stalking has occurred and may again occur, the court may issue an interpersonal protective order: (a) Restraining the adverse party from: 1. Committing further acts of dating violence and abuse, stalking, or sexual assault; 2. Any unauthorized contact or communication with the petitioner or other person specified by the court; 3. Approaching the petitioner or other person specified by the court within a distance specified in the order, not to exceed five hundred (500) feet; 4. Going to or within a specified distance of a specifically described residence, school, or place of employment or area where such a place is located; and 5. Disposing of or damaging any of the property of the parties; (b) Authorizing, at the request of the petitioner: 1. Limited contact or communication between the parties that the court finds necessary; or 2. The parties to remain in a common area, which may necessitate them being closer than five hundred (500) feet under limited circumstances with specific parameters set forth by the court.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 24 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Halloway v. Simmons (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 2017, 532 S.W.3d 158)“…ur, the court may issue an interpersonal protective order.” KRS 456.060(1). Under KRS 456.010(7), “ ‘[sjtalking…”
- Calhoun v. Wood (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 2017, 516 S.W.3d 357)“…ry to restrain Calhoun from further acts of stalking. See KRS 456.060(1). Based on our analysis of the proc…”
- Benson v. Lively (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 2018, 544 S.W.3d 159)“…However, similar to the DVO statute, the IPO statute, KRS 456.060, does allow a trial court to direct or…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kentucky Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections, Kentucky Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 512: CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
§ 512.020Criminal mischief in the first degreeIn force
(1) A person is guilty of criminal mischief in the first degree when: (a) Having no right to do so or any reasonable ground to believe that he or she has such right, he or she intentionally or wantonly: 1. Defaces, destroys, or damages any property causing pecuniary loss of five hundred dollars ($500) or more; 2. Damages, possesses, or tampers with the operations of a key infrastructure asset, as defined in KRS 511.100, in a manner that renders the asset inoperable, in whole or in part, or renders the operation of the asset harmful or dangerous; 3. As a tenant, defaces, destroys, or damages residential rental property causing pecuniary loss of five hundred dollars ($500) or more; or 4. As a squatter, defaces, destroys, or damages real property causing pecuniary loss of five hundred dollars ($500) or more; or (b) He or she violates KRS 367.628(2)(a).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 34 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Terry v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2008, 253 S.W.3d 466)“…ves Criminal mischief in the first degree is denounced in KRS 512.020(1): "A person is guilty of criminal mis…”
- Crain v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2008, 257 S.W.3d 924)“…pecuniary loss” as used in the criminal mischief statutes (KRS 512.020, 512.030, and 512.040), and whether pro…”
- Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Robert W. Brock (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 2026)“…trial) in order to proceed on a class B misdemeanor under KRS 512.020(2)(b). Limiting our review to question…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 512.030Criminal mischief in the second degreeIn force
(1) A person is guilty of criminal mischief in the second degree when, having no right to do so or any reasonable ground to believe that he or she has such right, he or she: (a) Intentionally or wantonly defaces, destroys, or damages any property causing pecuniary loss of less than five hundred dollars ($500); (b) As a tenant, intentionally or wantonly defaces, destroys, or damages residential rental property causing pecuniary loss of less than five hundred dollars ($500); or (c) As a squatter, intentionally or wantonly defaces, destroys, or damages real property causing a pecuniary loss of less than five hundred dollars ($500).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Terry v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2008, 253 S.W.3d 466)“…e property damage equal a "pecuniary loss of $500 or more," KRS 512.030; and third-degree has no pecuniary loss…”
- R.S. v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2014, 423 S.W.3d 178)“…nt cannot bear the weight R.S. attempts to give it. . KRS 512.030. . KRS 502.020(2) requires proof…”
- Crain v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2008, 257 S.W.3d 924)“…e criminal mischief requires a pecuniary loss of only $500, KRS 512.030, and third-degree criminal mischief has…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 531: PORNOGRAPHY
§ 531.090VoyeurismIn forcecited in 13 of our articles
(1) A person is guilty of voyeurism when: (a) He or she intentionally: 1. Uses or causes the use of any camera, videotape, photooptical, photoelectric, or other image recording device for the purpose of observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping the sexual conduct, genitals, an undergarment worn without being publicly visible, or nipple of the female breast of another person without that person's consent; or 2. Uses the unaided eye or any device designed to improve visual acuity for the purpose of observing or viewing the sexual conduct, genitals, an undergarment worn without being publicly visible, or nipple of the female breast of another person without that person's consent; or 3.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kentucky courts have treated KRS 531.090 largely as a jury-instruction question. Williams v. Commonwealth (2005) held the 2002 voyeurism statute could not reach conduct predating its July 15, 2002 effective date, and Morgan v. Commonwealth (2006) held voyeurism is not a lesser-included offense of first-degree burglary.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Williams v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2005, 178 S.W.3d 491)✓Williams photographed his eight-year-old stepdaughter naked in January 2001 and sought a lesser-included voyeurism instruction; the court held KRS 531.090 created a new offense effective July 15, 2002 and was not retroactive, so it could not reach his earlier conduct.
- Morgan v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2006, 189 S.W.3d 99)✓Morgan watched a couple through a trailer window, then cut the phone line and broke in armed; the court held voyeurism under KRS 531.090 is not a lesser-included offense of first-degree burglary because it requires proof of unlawful entry to view another person.
- Commonwealth v. Mixon (Kentucky Supreme Court 1992, 827 S.W.2d 689)“…lier cases, arising under the former habitual criminal act, KRS 531.090, required authenticated records of fore…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Kentucky Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Exceptions, Kentucky School Recording Laws: Student, Parent, and Teacher Rights, Kentucky Employee Monitoring Laws (2026): Workplace Surveillance Rights
§ 531.120Distribution of sexually explicit images without consentIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
(1) A person is guilty of distribution of sexually explicit images without consent when: (a) He or she intentionally distributes to any third party private erotic matter without the written consent of the person depicted, and does so with the intent to profit, or to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce the person depicted; and (b) The disclosure would cause a reasonable person to suffer harm. (2) This section shall not apply to: (a) Images involving voluntary nudity or sexual conduct in public, commercial settings, or in a place where a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; (b) Disclosures made in the public interest, including the reporting of unlawful conduct, or lawful and common practices of law enforcement, criminal reporting, corrections, legal proceedings, or medical treatment; (c) Disclosures of materials that constitute a matter of public concern; or (d) Internet service providers or telecommunications services, or interactive computer services, as defined in 47 U.S.C. sec. 230(f)(2), for content solely provided by another person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Also relied on in: Kentucky Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties, Revenge Porn Laws by State: All 50 States and DC (2026), Kentucky Pornography Laws (2026): Obscenity and Age Verification
United States Code Title 18
§ 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.
Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, One-Party Consent States: Complete 2026 Guide, Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties
§ 2701Unlawful access to stored communicationsIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section whoever— intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section. The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is— if the offense is committed for purposes of commercial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial gain, or in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any State— a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of a first offense under this subparagraph; and a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense under this subparagraph; and in any other case— a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 1 year or both, in the case of a first offense under this paragraph;…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 724 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Warshak (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2010, 631 F.3d 266)“…ied in good faith on the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq., a statute that allows the gove…”
- Guest v. Leis (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2001, 255 F.3d 325)“…7 *340 In their brief, plaintiffs mention in passing 18 U.S.C. § 2701 , which prohibits intentional unlawful…”
- City of Ontario v. Quon (Supreme Court of the United States 2010, 560 U.S. 746)“…Raising claims under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983; 18 U. S. C. §2701 et seq., popularly known as the Stored…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Idaho Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Iowa Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 381: TITLE TO PROPERTY AND RESTRICTIONS ON USE, OWNERSHIP, AND ALIENATION § 381.010 (Commonwealth vested with ultimate property to lands) · Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 526: EAVESDROPPING AND RELATED OFFENSES § 526.010 (Definition)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- KRS Chapter 526 - Eavesdropping and Related Offenses(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- KRS 526.020 - Eavesdropping(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- KRS 531.090 - Voyeurism(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- KRS 456.060 - Interpersonal Protective Orders(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- KRS Chapter 381 - Title to Property (incl. Kentucky Condominium Act)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- Kentucky Attorney General - Consumer Protection(ag.ky.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2701 - Stored Communications Act(law.cornell.edu)
- KRS 512.020 - Criminal Mischief in the First Degree(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- KRS 512.030 - Criminal Mischief in the Second Degree(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov