Michigan
Michigan Video Recording Laws: Surveillance Rules, Consent, and Penalties (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. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

In Michigan, silent video recording in public spaces is legal and protected by the First Amendment. Recording video in a private place without consent violates MCL 750.539d. When video also captures audio, MCL 750.539c applies, though participants in the conversation may record under the participant exception.
Michigan does not have a single, comprehensive video recording statute. Instead, video recording is governed by a combination of the state's surveillance device law (MCL 750.539d), the eavesdropping statute (MCL 750.539c), the voyeurism law (MCL 750.539j), and First Amendment protections for recording in public spaces.
The legality of any video recording in Michigan depends on three factors: where the recording takes place, whether the recording captures audio, and whether the subjects have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
When Video Recording Is Legal in Michigan
Public Spaces
You can legally record video in any public space in Michigan. The First Amendment protects the right to photograph and record in areas where the public has access. This includes:
- Public sidewalks, parks, and streets
- Government buildings open to the public
- Retail stores, restaurants, and other businesses open to the public
- Public events, rallies, and demonstrations
- Public transit stations and vehicles
Michigan law defines "private place" as a location where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance, but explicitly excludes places to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access (MCL 750.539a). Because public spaces do not qualify as "private places," the surveillance device statute does not apply.
Your Own Property
You can install video cameras on your own property, including your home, garage, yard, and driveway. MCL 750.539d contains a specific exception: "This section does not prohibit security monitoring in a residence if conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose."
This means homeowners and primary residents can operate home security cameras without violating the surveillance device law. However, cameras should not be pointed at areas where neighbors have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as bedroom windows or enclosed bathroom areas of adjacent properties.
With Consent
Video recording in a private place is legal when the person or persons entitled to privacy in that location consent. Consent can be express (verbal or written agreement) or implied (such as visible signage indicating that video surveillance is in operation, combined with the person's continued presence in the area).
When Video Recording Is Illegal in Michigan
Hidden Cameras in Private Places
MCL 750.539d(1)(a) makes it a felony to "install, place, or use in any private place, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy in that place, any device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in that place."
Private places under Michigan law include:
- Private residences and hotel rooms
- Bathrooms and restrooms
- Changing rooms and fitting rooms
- Private offices (when closed to others)
- Any location where someone can reasonably expect to be free from surveillance
The statute covers any type of device, including cameras, smartphones, body-worn cameras, and computer webcams. The key element is whether the location qualifies as a "private place" and whether consent was obtained.
Video with Audio in Private Settings
When a video recording also captures audio, it triggers Michigan's eavesdropping statute (MCL 750.539c). If the audio portion records "the private discourse of others" without consent, the recording violates the eavesdropping law regardless of whether the video portion alone would be legal.
The participant exception from Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476, 324 N.W.2d 58 (1982), applies to the audio component. If you are present and participating in the conversation being recorded, the audio capture is lawful under the participant exception. If you are not a participant, capturing the audio is illegal third-party eavesdropping.
Distributing Illegal Recordings
MCL 750.539d(1)(b) separately prohibits distributing, disseminating, or transmitting any recording, photograph, or visual image that was obtained in violation of the hidden camera law. This means sharing illegal recordings online, via social media, or through any other medium is itself a felony, even if you were not the person who made the original recording.
Video Recording and the "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" Standard

Michigan courts apply a "reasonable expectation of privacy" test to determine whether a location qualifies as a "private place" under the statute. This analysis considers:
Factors suggesting a reasonable expectation of privacy:
- The location is enclosed or shielded from public view
- Access is restricted to specific individuals
- The person took steps to ensure privacy (closing a door, drawing curtains)
- Social norms suggest privacy is expected (bathrooms, bedrooms, medical exam rooms)
Factors suggesting no reasonable expectation of privacy:
- The location is open to the public
- The person is visible from public areas
- The person is in a shared or common space with no restrictions on access
- Signage indicates that video surveillance is in operation
The test is objective. It asks whether a reasonable person in the same situation would expect privacy, not whether the specific individual subjectively felt they were being watched.
Video Recording at Work
Employers in Michigan may use video surveillance in common areas of the workplace, provided employees receive notice. Cameras in lobbies, hallways, break rooms, warehouses, and retail floors are generally permissible when employees know about them.
However, video surveillance is prohibited in areas where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy:
- Bathrooms and restrooms
- Changing rooms and locker rooms
- Private offices with closed doors (without the occupant's consent)
- Nursing or lactation rooms
If workplace cameras also record audio, the employer must comply with the eavesdropping statute. Since the employer is not a participant in every employee conversation captured by a stationary camera, audio recording by workplace surveillance systems can create significant legal liability.
Video Recording on Commercial Property

Business owners can install video surveillance on their own commercial property. Cameras in parking lots, entrances, retail floors, and common areas serve legitimate security purposes and are legally permitted.
Best practices for commercial video surveillance in Michigan include:
- Post visible signs informing visitors and employees that video recording is in progress
- Do not place cameras in restrooms, changing rooms, or other private areas
- If cameras record audio, ensure compliance with the eavesdropping statute
- Establish written policies for video retention, access, and deletion
- Train employees on proper use and limitations of surveillance equipment
Criminal Penalties for Illegal Video Recording
| Offense | Statute | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hidden camera in private place (first offense) | MCL 750.539d | 2 years | $2,000 |
| Hidden camera in private place (repeat offense) | MCL 750.539d | 5 years | $5,000 |
| Distributing illegal recordings | MCL 750.539d | 5 years | $5,000 |
| Video with illegal audio capture | MCL 750.539c | 2 years | $2,000 |
All offenses are felonies. Repeat offenders and distributors of illegally obtained recordings face significantly harsher penalties.
Civil Remedies

Victims of illegal video surveillance can bring civil lawsuits under MCL 750.539h. Available remedies include injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages. Victims may also pursue claims under common law invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or federal civil rights statutes.
Video Recording and Michigan's Open Meetings Act
The Michigan Open Meetings Act (MCL 15.263) explicitly protects the right to videotape, broadcast, and telecast proceedings of any public body at a public meeting. This right exists without requiring prior approval from the public body, although the public body may establish reasonable rules to minimize disruption.
This protection covers city council meetings, school board meetings, county commission meetings, and any other meeting of a public body that is required to be open to the public under Michigan law.
Drones and Aerial Video
Michigan does not have a comprehensive state drone surveillance law. Drone operators must comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. However, using a drone to record video in an area where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy could violate MCL 750.539d.
Flying a drone over a neighbor's fenced backyard to record their activities, for example, could constitute illegal surveillance in a private place. The analysis depends on whether the area being recorded qualifies as a "private place" where the occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Practical Guidelines for Legal Video Recording
-
In public, you can record. There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces, and the First Amendment protects your right to record.
-
In private, get consent. If you are in a private place, you need consent from the person entitled to privacy there before recording.
-
Watch the audio. Silent video has different rules than video with audio. If your recording captures private conversations, the eavesdropping statute applies.
-
Do not aim cameras at private spaces. Even on your own property, pointing cameras at areas where neighbors have a reasonable expectation of privacy can create liability.
-
Never distribute illegal recordings. Sharing recordings obtained through illegal surveillance is a separate felony with harsher penalties than the original recording offense.
Related Michigan 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 Michigan Recording Laws
More Michigan Recording Topics
More Michigan Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to record video in public in Michigan?
Yes. Video recording in public places is legal in Michigan and protected by the First Amendment. Michigan law defines private place as a location where someone can reasonably expect to be safe from intrusion, which explicitly excludes places accessible to the public. You can record video on sidewalks, in parks, at public events, and in businesses open to the public.
Can I install security cameras on my property in Michigan?
Yes. MCL 750.539d contains a specific exception allowing security monitoring in a residence when conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant. However, cameras should not be aimed at areas where neighbors have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the exception does not apply if the cameras are used for lewd or lascivious purposes.
Is it illegal to have a hidden camera in someone's home in Michigan?
Yes. Installing any recording or surveillance device in a private place without the consent of the person entitled to privacy there is a felony under MCL 750.539d. A first offense carries up to 2 years in prison and a $2,000 fine. Distributing the recordings is a separate felony with up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
Does Michigan's video recording law apply to audio captured by cameras?
Yes. When a video camera also records audio, the eavesdropping statute (MCL 750.539c) applies to the audio portion. If the camera captures private conversations of people who are not aware of the recording and the camera operator is not a participant in those conversations, the audio capture violates the eavesdropping law.
Can I record a public meeting in Michigan?
Yes. The Michigan Open Meetings Act (MCL 15.263) explicitly protects the right to videotape, broadcast on radio, and telecast on television the proceedings of any public body at a public meeting. This right does not require prior approval, though the public body may establish reasonable rules to minimize disruption.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
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.
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 750.539dInstallation, placement, or use of device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing or eavesdropping in private placeIn forcecited in 30 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not do either of the following: (a) Install, place, or use in any private place, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy in that place, any device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in that place. (b) Distribute, disseminate, or transmit for access by any other person a recording, photograph, or visual image the person knows or has reason to know was obtained in violation of this section. (2) This section does not prohibit security monitoring in a residence if conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose. (3) A person who violates or attempts to violate this section is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(a): (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 24 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Lewis v. LeGrow held a bedroom in a private home is a "private place" under MCL 750.539d and that consenting to sex does not consent to being secretly videotaped there, sustaining civil awards. People v. Wilkens affirmed convictions including one under the section for a camera hidden in a shower used by tenants.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lewis v. LeGrow (Michigan Court of Appeals 2003, 258 Mich. App. 175)✓A man hid a video camera in his own bedroom and taped three women having sex with him; the court held the bedroom was a private place under 539d and that consenting to sex did not mean consenting to be taped, so the jury verdicts against him stood.
- People v. Wilkens (Michigan Court of Appeals 2005, 267 Mich. App. 728)“…ne count of eavesdropping through installation of a camera, MCL 750.539d. [1] The trial court sentenced defenda…”
- People v. Waltonen (Michigan Court of Appeals 2007, 272 Mich. App. 678)“…drug house, MCL 333.7405(l)(d); one count of eavesdropping, MCL 750.539d; and four counts of engaging the servic…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Michigan Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules, Statutes, and Penalties (2026), Michigan Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Doctor Visits (2026)
§ 15.263Meetings, decisions, and deliberations of public body; requirements; attending or addressing meeting of public body; COVID-19 safety measures; tape-recording, videotaping, broadcasting, and telecasting proceedings; accommodation of absent members; remote attendance; rules; exclusion from meeting; exemptionsIn forcecited in 10 of our articles
(1) All meetings of a public body must be open to the public and must be held in a place available to the general public. All persons must be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided in this act. The right of a person to attend a meeting of a public body includes the right to tape-record, to videotape, to broadcast live on radio, and to telecast live on television the proceedings of a public body at a public meeting. The exercise of this right does not depend on the prior approval of the public body. However, a public body may establish reasonable rules and regulations in order to minimize the possibility of disrupting the meeting. For a meeting of a public body held in person before April 1, 2021, the public body shall do both of the following: (a) To the extent feasible under the circumstances, ensure adherence to social distancing and mitigation measures recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for purposes of preventing the spread of COVID-19, including the measure that an individual remain at least 6 feet from anyone from outside the individual's household.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 94 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Booth Newspapers, Inc v. University of Michigan Board of Regents (Michigan Supreme Court 1993, 444 Mich. 211)“…ing violated the act by not taking place in a public forum. MCL 15.263(2); MSA 4.1800(13)(2). See also OAG 197…”
- Herald Co. v. City of Bay City (Michigan Supreme Court 2000, 463 Mich. 111)“…mbers shall take place at a meeting open to the public.... [MCL 15.263; MSA 4.1800(13).] The statute strictl…”
- Speicher v. Columbia Township Board of Trustees (Michigan Supreme Court 2014, 497 Mich. 125)“…o, J. MCL 15.261 et seq. MCR 7.215(J). MCL 15.263(2) requires that “[a]ll decisions of a…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Legal Limits (2026), Michigan Laws on Recording in Public: First Amendment Rights and Limits (2026), Michigan School Recording Laws: Rules for Students, Parents, and Teachers (2026)
§ 750.539aDefinitionsIn forcecited in 30 of our articles
As used in sections 539a to 539i: (1) "Private place" means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access. (2) "Eavesdrop" or "eavesdropping" means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse. Neither this definition or any other provision of this act shall modify or affect any law or regulation concerning interception, divulgence or recording of messages transmitted by communications common carriers. (3) "Surveillance" means to secretly observe the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person observed. (4) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation or association.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 26 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lewis v. LeGrow (Michigan Court of Appeals 2003, 258 Mich. App. 175)“…such unauthorized installation, is guilty of a felony.... MCL 750.539a provides the definitions of phrases use…”
- People v. Stone (Michigan Supreme Court 2001, 463 Mich. 558)“…permission of all persons engaged in the discourse.” MCL 750.539a(2); MSA 28.807(1)(2). In…”
- People v. Lucas (Michigan Court of Appeals 1991, 188 Mich. App. 554)“…e Commander Turner, in answering the mobile phone, violated MCL 750.539a et seq.; MSA 28.807(1)…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Dashcam Laws: Windshield Rules, Audio Recording, and Legal Use (2026), Michigan Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Tenant Rights (2026), Michigan Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for Landlines, Cell Phones, and VoIP (2026)
§ 750.539cEavesdropping upon private conversationIn forcecited in 42 of our articles
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 32 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts read MCL 750.539c to reach third-party eavesdropping only. Sullivan v. Gray (1982) held the statutory phrase "private discourse of others" excludes recording by a participant in the conversation; People v. Lucas (1991) held an officer who answered an arrestee's ringing car phone did not violate the section.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Lucas (Michigan Court of Appeals 1991, 188 Mich. App. 554)✓Police answering the arrested defendant's ringing car phone took drug-purchase calls and testified to them; the court held the officer was not an eavesdropper because there was no private discourse between the sender and some other receiver, so MCL 750.539c was not violated.
- Sullivan v. Gray (Michigan Court of Appeals 1982, 117 Mich. App. 476)✓A party to a phone call about a failed car dealership sale secretly taped it and the transcript was used in later litigation; reading the statute to reach only the private discourse of others, the court held participant recording is not eavesdropping under MCL 750.539c.
- People v. Warner (Michigan Supreme Court 1977, 401 Mich. 186)✓A motel switchboard operator deliberately listened in on a guest's call and reported it to police; the court held her willful eavesdropping violated MCL 750.539c, but the defendant, not shown to be a party to the call, had no standing to suppress the resulting evidence.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Security Camera Laws: Rules for Homes, Businesses, and Neighbors (2026), Michigan AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Michigan Employee Monitoring Laws (2026): Social Media, GPS & Cameras
§ 750.539hCivil remediesIn forcecited in 22 of our articles
Any parties to any conversation upon which eavesdropping is practiced contrary to this act shall be entitled to the following civil remedies: (a) An injunction by a court of record prohibiting further eavesdropping. (b) All actual damages against the person who eavesdrops. (c) Punitive damages as determined by the court or by a jury.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- McAuley v. General Motors Corp. (Michigan Supreme Court 1998, 457 Mich. 513)“…MSA 4.1801(10)(7), MCL 600.2911(2)(b); MSA 27A.2911(2)(b), MCL 750.539h(c); MSA 28.807(8)(c). In additio…”
- Eide v. Kelsey-Hayes Co. (Michigan Supreme Court 1988, 431 Mich. 26)“…violation); MCL 600.2911; MSA 27A.2911 (libel or slander); MCL 750.539h; MSA 28.807(8) (eavesdropping, allowing…”
- Anzaldua v. Band (Michigan Supreme Court 1998, 457 Mich. 530)“…this act, the court or jury who shall try the same); and MCL 750.539h(c); MSA 28.807(8)(c) (any party to a co…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Recording Laws (2026): Consent Rules and Participant Exception, Michigan Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: MCL 750.539j Penalties and Protections (2026), Michigan Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
§ 750.539jSurveillance of or distribution, dissemination, or transmission of recording, photograph, or visual image of individual having reasonable expectation of privacy; prohibited conduct; violation as felony; penalty; exceptions; "surveil" definedIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
(1) A person shall not do any of the following: (a) Surveil another individual who is clad only in his or her undergarments, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (b) Photograph, or otherwise capture or record, the visual image of the undergarments worn by another individual, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (c) Distribute, disseminate, or transmit for access by any other person a recording, photograph, or visual image the person knows or has reason to know was obtained in violation of this section. (2) A person who violates or attempts to violate this section is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(a): (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 17 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts have applied MCL 750.539j to hidden cameras. In People of Michigan v. Jeffrey Thomas Mazur (2015) the Court of Appeals held the statute does not require that a defendant view the recorded material, and that its residential security-monitoring exception does not cover a camera used for a lewd or lascivious purpose.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- In Re L-S Morehead Minor (Michigan Court of Appeals 2026)“…e, was arrested for felony surveilling an unclothed person, MCL 750.539j(1)(a). The trial court authori…”
- In Re K N Klemkow Minor (Michigan Court of Appeals 2024)“…520g(2), and two counts of surveilling an unclothed person, MCL 750.539j. Respondent was arraigned on the crimin…”
- People of Michigan v. Cora Ladane Lymon (Michigan Supreme Court 2024)“…ither naked or clad in undergarments, MCL 28.722(r)(vi) and MCL 750.539j. These offenses all involve a sexual c…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Drone Laws (2026): Privacy Statute, Preemption, and Warrants, Michigan Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026, Michigan Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Michigan Legislature - MCL 750.539d (Surveillance Devices)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Michigan Legislature - MCL 750.539c (Eavesdropping)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Michigan Legislature - MCL 750.539a (Definitions)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Michigan Legislature - MCL 750.539j (Voyeurism)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Michigan Legislature - MCL 750.539h (Civil Remedies)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Michigan Legislature - MCL 15.263 (Open Meetings Act)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022)(law.justia.com)