Kentucky
Kentucky Video Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Legal Limits
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. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
In Kentucky, silent video recording in public spaces is legal with no statute restricting it. Adding audio triggers one-party consent rules under KRS 526.020. Voyeurism under KRS 531.090 bars recording intimate areas in private spaces where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Kentucky does not have a single comprehensive video recording statute. Instead, video recording in the state is governed by a combination of eavesdropping laws (when audio is captured), voyeurism statutes, nonconsensual image distribution laws, and general property and privacy principles.
This guide covers every aspect of video recording law in Kentucky, from public filming rights to hidden camera restrictions, workplace surveillance, and the specific criminal statutes that protect personal privacy.
Video Recording in Public Spaces
General Rule: Public Filming Is Legal
Kentucky has no statute that prohibits video recording in public spaces. You can legally film in any area where you have a legal right to be, including:
- Public streets, sidewalks, and intersections
- Parks, plazas, and public squares
- Government buildings (exterior and public-access interior areas)
- Public transportation stops and stations
- Public events, parades, and demonstrations
- Outdoor sporting events and festivals
The legal basis is straightforward: there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public spaces where anyone can observe you. Kentucky courts follow the general principle that what is visible to the public eye is not protected from being recorded.
Audio Capture Changes the Analysis
Video-only recording (no sound) in public is essentially unregulated in Kentucky. However, the moment you capture audio along with video, the eavesdropping statutes in KRS Chapter 526 become relevant.
Under KRS 526.020, recording oral communications requires the consent of at least one party. If you are filming in public and your camera captures a private conversation between two strangers that you are not part of, the audio portion could raise legal issues if those speakers had a reasonable expectation of privacy.
In practice, ambient noise captured while filming in a busy public area rarely triggers eavesdropping concerns. But deliberately targeting a private conversation with a directional microphone or parabolic dish while filming would be a different matter.
Video Recording on Private Property
Property Owner Rights
On private property, the property owner or authorized occupant sets the rules about video recording. A business can prohibit filming inside its premises. A homeowner can forbid recording on their property. If you continue to record after being asked to stop on private property, you may face trespassing charges under KRS 511.060 (criminal trespass in the first degree, a Class A misdemeanor) or KRS 511.070 (criminal trespass in the second degree, a Class B misdemeanor).
Recording Your Own Property
You have broad rights to install video cameras on your own property. Kentucky homeowners and business owners can place surveillance cameras to monitor their property, including:
- Exterior security cameras covering driveways, entrances, and yards
- Interior cameras in common areas of a business
- Doorbell cameras and smart home devices
- Parking lot surveillance systems
Cameras on your own property should not be aimed to capture areas where others have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a neighbor's bedroom window or bathroom.
Recording in Rental Properties
Landlords generally cannot install hidden cameras inside rental units, as tenants have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes. Landlords may install cameras in common areas of multi-unit buildings (lobbies, hallways, parking garages) but not inside individual apartments or in areas like shared bathrooms or laundry rooms where privacy is expected.
Voyeurism Under KRS 531.090
What the Statute Prohibits
KRS 531.090 makes it illegal to intentionally use a camera or recording device to observe, view, photograph, film, or videotape another person's sexual conduct, genitals, a non-publicly-visible undergarment, or the nipple of the female breast, without that person's consent, in a place where a reasonable person would believe those areas or that conduct will not be observed without their knowledge. The statute does not require proof that the recording was for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.
KRS 531.090 does not use the term "intimate areas." Its protected list is sexual conduct, genitals, a non-publicly-visible undergarment, or the nipple of the female breast; it does not separately cover the pubic area or buttocks.
Penalties for Voyeurism
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Voyeurism (first offense) | Class A misdemeanor | Up to 12 months in jail |
| Voyeurism (subsequent offense or aggravating factors) | May be charged more severely | Varies by circumstances |
Common Voyeurism Scenarios
Voyeurism charges in Kentucky typically arise from:
- Hidden cameras in bathrooms, bedrooms, or changing areas
- "Upskirting" or "downblousing" in public places
- Peeping into windows or using optical devices to view someone in private
- Hidden cameras in hotel rooms or short-term rentals
Nonconsensual Distribution of Intimate Images (KRS 531.120)
What the Law Covers
KRS 531.120, enacted in 2018, specifically addresses the distribution of sexually explicit images without the depicted person's written consent. This is commonly known as a "revenge porn" law.
The statute applies when a person intentionally distributes images showing another person in a state of nudity or engaged in sexual conduct, where the images were obtained under circumstances in which the depicted person had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the depicted person did not provide written consent to the distribution.
Penalties for Nonconsensual Distribution
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| First offense | Class A misdemeanor | Up to 12 months in jail |
| Second or subsequent offense | Class D felony | 1 to 5 years in prison |
| Distribution for profit, first offense | Class D felony | 1 to 5 years in prison |
| Distribution for profit, second or subsequent offense | Class C felony | 5 to 10 years in prison |
Written Consent Requirement
The statute specifically requires written consent for distribution to be legal. Verbal permission alone does not satisfy the law. This is an important distinction for anyone who creates intimate images with a partner. The existence of consent to create the images does not imply consent to distribute them.
Video Recording in Specific Settings
Workplace Video Surveillance
Kentucky employers can install video surveillance in work areas where employees do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes:
- Production floors and warehouse areas
- Retail sales floors
- Office common areas and break rooms (though this is more contested)
- Parking lots and building exteriors
- Loading docks and storage areas
Employers cannot install cameras in:
- Restrooms
- Locker rooms and changing areas
- Designated lactation rooms
There is no Kentucky statute requiring employers to notify employees about workplace video surveillance, but many employers choose to post notices as a best practice. Adding audio recording to workplace cameras triggers one-party consent issues under KRS 526.020.
Schools
Kentucky school districts can use video surveillance on school property for safety and security purposes. The Kentucky Department of Education recognizes surveillance as a legitimate security measure. Cameras are common in hallways, cafeterias, gymnasiums, school buses, and parking lots. Cameras should not be placed in restrooms, locker rooms, or other areas with heightened privacy expectations.
Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), video recordings that are directly related to a student and maintained by the school may be considered education records, subject to parental access rights and privacy protections.
Medical Facilities
Patients in Kentucky healthcare facilities have privacy rights under both state law and the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Video recording in medical settings requires careful consideration:
- Patients can record their own medical appointments (one-party consent for audio)
- Healthcare facilities can set policies restricting recording on their premises
- Surveillance in patient rooms requires patient consent
- HIPAA does not directly address patient recording, but facility policies typically do
Video Recording and Evidence
Admissibility in Kentucky Courts
Video recordings are generally admissible as evidence in Kentucky courts when properly authenticated. Under the Kentucky Rules of Evidence (KRE 901), the offering party must establish:
- The recording accurately represents what it purports to show
- The recording has not been altered or tampered with
- The recording is relevant to the matter at hand
Authentication Methods
Common ways to authenticate video evidence in Kentucky include:
- Testimony from the person who made the recording
- Testimony from a witness who observed the events depicted
- Chain of custody documentation
- Metadata analysis showing date, time, and device information
- Expert testimony regarding authenticity when challenged
Illegally Obtained Video
Video obtained through voyeurism or other illegal means may be inadmissible and could expose the person who created it to criminal prosecution. The court balances the probative value of the evidence against the manner in which it was obtained.
Federal Laws Affecting Video Recording in Kentucky
First Amendment Protections
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to record in public spaces. Multiple federal circuit courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials performing their duties in public. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Kentucky, has addressed this right in the context of recording police officers.
Federal Wiretapping Law
18 U.S.C. 2511 governs the interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications at the federal level. This primarily affects the audio component of video recordings. Video-only recordings without audio are not covered by the federal wiretap act.
FERPA and Student Privacy
Schools in Kentucky must comply with FERPA, which protects the privacy of student education records. School surveillance footage may be considered an education record if it is directly related to a specific student and maintained by the school.
Penalties Summary for Video-Related Offenses
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voyeurism | KRS 531.090 | Class A misdemeanor | 12 months jail |
| Nonconsensual image distribution (1st) | KRS 531.120 | Class A misdemeanor | 12 months jail |
| Nonconsensual image distribution (2nd+) | KRS 531.120 | Class D felony | 1-5 years prison, $1,000-$10,000 fine |
| Distribution for profit (1st offense) | KRS 531.120 | Class D felony | 1-5 years prison, $1,000-$10,000 fine |
| Distribution for profit (2nd+ offense) | KRS 531.120 | Class C felony | 5-10 years prison, $1,000-$10,000 fine |
| Criminal trespass (1st degree) | KRS 511.060 | Class A misdemeanor | 12 months jail |
| Eavesdropping (audio on video) | KRS 526.020 | Class D felony | 1-5 years prison, $1,000-$10,000 fine |
Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act and Kentucky AI Law
The TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed into law May 19, 2025, creates federal civil and criminal remedies for nonconsensual intimate image sharing (NCII), including AI-generated deepfakes. Platforms must remove qualifying content within 48 hours of a valid takedown notice, with platform compliance effective May 19, 2026. This federal law supplements Kentucky's existing KRS 531.120 for real images.
Kentucky's own AI law, SB 4 (2025) (Acts Ch. 66, signed Mar. 24, 2025), created KRS 117.322, which regulates AI-generated synthetic media in the election context only -- it creates a civil cause of action for AI-manipulated campaign content in electioneering communications. Kentucky has no general state-law deepfake or NCII remedy outside elections; the TAKE IT DOWN Act fills that gap federally.
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
More Kentucky Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to record video in public in Kentucky?
Yes. Kentucky has no law prohibiting video recording in public spaces. You can film on public streets, parks, sidewalks, and any area where you have a legal right to be. If your video captures audio of private conversations you are not part of, the eavesdropping laws under KRS 526.020 may apply to the audio portion.
Can I install security cameras on my property in Kentucky?
Yes. Kentucky homeowners and business owners can install security cameras on their own property. Cameras should not be aimed to capture areas where others have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a neighbor's bathroom or bedroom windows.
What is the penalty for voyeurism in Kentucky?
Voyeurism under KRS 531.090 is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to 12 months in jail. It applies to intentionally viewing, photographing, or recording someone's intimate areas without their consent when they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Is revenge porn illegal in Kentucky?
Yes. KRS 531.120, enacted in 2018, makes nonconsensual distribution of sexually explicit images illegal. A first offense is a Class A misdemeanor (up to 12 months in jail). A second or subsequent offense is a Class D felony (1 to 5 years in prison). Distribution for profit is a Class D felony on the first offense and a Class C felony (5 to 10 years in prison) for a second or subsequent for-profit offense.
Can my employer record me on video at work in Kentucky?
Employers can use video surveillance in common work areas like production floors, retail spaces, and parking lots. They cannot install cameras in restrooms, locker rooms, or changing areas. Adding audio to workplace cameras triggers one-party consent requirements under KRS 526.020.
Updates
Corrected the TAKE IT DOWN Act's signing date (it was signed May 19, 2025, not 2026) and fixed two dead or misrouted statute-citation links (KRS 511.060 and KRS 117.322) so each points to its actual statute text.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
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 the elements of KRS 531.090 voyeurism (the statute does not require a sexual-arousal purpose, and its protected list is sexual conduct/genitals/undergarment/nipple, not pubic area/buttocks/breast area), and corrected the for-profit image-distribution penalty under KRS 531.120, which escalates to a Class C felony on a second or subsequent for-profit offense rather than remaining Class D.
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 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.
§ 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
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
Kentucky Revised Statutes, Chapter 511: BURGLARY AND RELATED OFFENSES
§ 511.060Criminal trespass in the first degreeIn force
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the first degree when he or she knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling. (2) Criminal trespass in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor, unless the offense occurs during a declared emergency as defined by KRS 39A.020 arising from a natural or man-made disaster, within the area covered by the emergency declaration, and within the area impacted by the disaster, in which case it is a Class D felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 17 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rogers v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2002, 86 S.W.3d 29)“…nt would still be guilty of first-degree criminal trespass. KRS 511.060. Thus, Appellant was entitled to an ins…”
- Colwell v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2000, 37 S.W.3d 721)“…a dwelling, the offense is first-degree criminal trespass. KRS 511.060(1). If the property was EITHER a buildi…”
- Hunt v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2010, 304 S.W.3d 15)“…crime. First-degree criminal trespass is defined in KRS 511.060(1) as follows: (1) A person is g…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 511.070Criminal trespass in the second degreeIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree when he or she knowingly enters or remains: (a) Unlawfully in a building or upon premises as to which notice against trespass is given by fencing or other enclosure; or (b) In a workplace, while engaging in threatening behavior, as to which notice against trespass is given verbally or in writing by the applicable employer, an employee with the employer's authorization, or an authorized agent of the employer. (2) For the purposes of this section, notice against trespass includes the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property if the marks are: (a) Vertical lines of not less than eight (8) inches in length and not less than one (1) inch in width; (b) Placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three (3) feet from the ground nor more than five (5) feet from the ground; and (c) Placed at locations that are readily visible to any person approaching the property and no more than: 1. One hundred (100) feet apart on forest land; or 2. One thousand (1,000) feet apart on land other than forest land.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at apps.legislature.ky.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Colwell v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2000, 37 S.W.3d 721)“…enclosure," the offense is second-degree criminal trespass. KRS 511.070(1) (emphasis added). If the property wa…”
- McGruder v. Commonwealth (Kentucky Supreme Court 2016, 487 S.W.3d 884)“…building or dwelling with no further criminal intent. See KRS 511.070. On the other' hand, the Commonwealth…”
- Kiser v. Commonwealth (Court of Appeals of Kentucky 2008, 289 S.W.3d 589)“…as a "structure" or a "building." For example, pursuant to KRS 511.070(1), one is guilty of second-degree crim…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
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.
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.
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): 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 526.020 - Eavesdropping(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- KRS Chapter 526 - Eavesdropping and Related Offenses(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- KRS 531.090 - Voyeurism(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- KRS 531.120 - Nonconsensual Distribution of Sexually Explicit Images(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- KRS 511.060 - Criminal Trespass in the First Degree(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- FERPA - Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act(www2.ed.gov).gov
- HIPAA - Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act(hhs.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)