Minnesota Video Recording Laws: Public Filming, Privacy, and Penalties
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. · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Minnesota law permits silent video recording in public spaces without restriction. When video captures audio, the one-party consent rule under Minn. Stat. Section 626A.02 applies. Recording video in a location where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy can violate Minn. Stat. Section 609.746, the interference-with-privacy statute.
Overview of Minnesota Video Recording Laws
Minnesota does not have a single comprehensive statute governing all video recording. Instead, video recording is regulated by a combination of statutes addressing wiretapping, privacy, voyeurism, and data protection. Understanding when video recording is legal in Minnesota requires analyzing which statutes apply to your specific situation.
The most important distinction is between video-only recording and video with audio. Minnesota's wiretapping statute, Minn. Stat. Section 626A.02, covers "wire, oral, or electronic communications," which means it primarily targets audio. Pure video recording without sound does not fall squarely under Chapter 626A. However, because most modern video recordings capture audio simultaneously, the one-party consent rule typically applies in practice.
Separate privacy statutes, particularly Minn. Stat. Section 609.746 (interference with privacy), create additional restrictions on video recording regardless of whether audio is captured.
Video Recording in Public Spaces
General Right to Film in Public
Minnesota recognizes a broad right to record video in public spaces. You can legally film:
- On public streets, sidewalks, and parks
- In government buildings open to the public
- At public meetings and government proceedings
- During public protests and demonstrations
- From your own property looking at public areas
- In retail stores, restaurants, and other businesses open to the public (subject to the owner's right to set rules on their property)
This right is grounded in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which courts have recognized as protecting the right to record matters of public interest. The right to film in public is not absolute, but restrictions must be narrowly tailored and content-neutral.
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
The key legal concept governing video recording in Minnesota is the reasonable expectation of privacy. Recording is generally legal when the subject has no reasonable expectation of privacy, such as when they are in a public place. Recording becomes problematic when the subject is in a location where they reasonably expect privacy.
Locations where people generally have a reasonable expectation of privacy include:
- Private homes and apartments
- Bathrooms and restrooms
- Locker rooms and changing areas
- Hotel rooms
- Medical examination rooms
- Private offices with closed doors
Locations where people generally do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy include:
- Public streets and parks
- Shopping malls and retail stores
- Restaurants, bars, and coffee shops
- Open-plan offices and lobbies
- Parking lots
- Public transportation
Recording on Private Property
On private property, the property owner or authorized person sets the rules about recording. A business owner can prohibit video recording inside their establishment. If you continue recording after being asked to stop on private property, you could face trespassing charges under Minn. Stat. Section 609.605.
However, a property owner's prohibition on recording does not give them the right to confiscate your recording equipment or demand you delete recordings already made.
The Audio Component: One-Party Consent
When video recording captures audio, Minnesota's wiretapping statute comes into play. Under Minn. Stat. Section 626A.02, the one-party consent rule applies to the audio portion of any video recording.
This means:
- If you are a participant in the conversation being recorded on video, one-party consent is satisfied
- If you are recording video of other people's conversations without being a participant, the audio capture may violate the wiretapping statute
- Video-only recording (with the microphone turned off) is not covered by Section 626A.02
In practice, most video recordings do capture audio, so the safest approach is to assume that one-party consent rules apply to any video recording in a private setting.
Interference with Privacy: Minn. Stat. Section 609.746
What the Statute Prohibits
Minn. Stat. Section 609.746 makes it a crime to surreptitiously use any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events in a location where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. This statute applies to both video and audio recording.
The word "surreptitiously" is key. The statute targets secret, hidden recording in private spaces. It does not apply to open, obvious recording in public settings.
Penalties for Interference with Privacy
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Prison Term | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| First offense | Gross misdemeanor | 364 days | $3,000 |
| Second offense | Felony | 2 years | $5,000 |
| Offense involving a minor | Felony | 2 years | $5,000 |
The escalation from gross misdemeanor to felony for repeat offenses or offenses involving minors reflects the seriousness with which Minnesota treats privacy violations through hidden recording.
Specific Prohibited Locations
Minnesota law specifically prohibits surreptitious video recording in:
- Bathrooms and restrooms in any building
- Locker rooms and changing areas in gyms, pools, and retail stores
- Tanning booths and fitting rooms
- Bedrooms in private residences
- Hotel rooms and guest quarters
- Any location where a person is in a state of undress and has a reasonable expectation of privacy
Nonconsensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images
Minn. Stat. Section 617.261
Minnesota has a specific statute addressing what is commonly called "revenge porn." Minn. Stat. Section 617.261 criminalizes the intentional dissemination of an image of another person who is depicted in a sexual act or whose intimate parts are exposed, when the person depicted did not consent to the dissemination and the disseminator knew or should have known the person depicted did not consent.
This statute applies to both photographs and video recordings. Violations are classified as follows:
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| First offense | Gross misdemeanor | 1 year / $3,000 |
| Repeat offense or significant harm | Felony | 3 years / $5,000 |
Civil Remedy: Minn. Stat. Section 604.31
Victims of nonconsensual image dissemination also have a civil cause of action under Minn. Stat. Section 604.31. This statute allows victims to sue the person who disseminated the images for:
- Actual damages, including emotional distress
- Statutory damages
- Injunctive relief to prevent further distribution
- Attorney fees and court costs
The civil remedy exists alongside the criminal penalties, meaning a victim can pursue both a criminal complaint and a civil lawsuit.
Video Recording in Specific Settings
Workplace Video Surveillance
Minnesota employers can generally install video cameras in common work areas where employees do not have a privacy expectation. Cameras are permitted in:
- Reception areas and lobbies
- Warehouses and production floors
- Parking lots and building exteriors
- Common break rooms (with notice)
Cameras are prohibited in:
- Bathrooms and restrooms
- Changing areas and locker rooms
- Areas designated for private activities
If workplace cameras capture audio, the one-party consent rule applies. Silent video surveillance in common areas is generally permissible, but employers should have written policies informing employees about camera locations and purposes.
School Video Recording
Minnesota schools use security cameras extensively. School districts set their own policies about camera placement and use, subject to state and federal privacy laws. Parents and students generally have limited rights to record inside schools, and schools can restrict recording through their policies.
For detailed information about recording in educational settings, see our page on Minnesota school recording laws.
Home Security Cameras
Minnesota residents can install video cameras on their own property for security purposes. Key rules include:
- Cameras on your property can record your yard, driveway, and entrances
- Cameras should not be aimed directly into a neighbor's private spaces (bedrooms, bathrooms)
- Audio-enabled cameras must comply with the one-party consent rule for any conversations they capture
- Indoor cameras in your own home are legal in common areas, but not in spaces where guests expect privacy (bathrooms, guest bedrooms)
Dashcam Video Recording
Dashcams are legal in Minnesota. There are no specific state laws restricting their use. The video captured by dashcams in public spaces does not raise privacy concerns because people on public roads have no reasonable expectation of privacy. For a detailed discussion of dashcam-specific rules, see our page on Minnesota dashcam laws.
AI-Generated Video and Deepfakes
Minnesota has taken steps to address synthetic media. Minn. Stat. Section 609.771 prohibits using deepfake audio or video to influence elections, but the restricted window is tied to a political party nominating convention or the start of an election's absentee voting period rather than a flat 90 days before Election Day: dissemination is prohibited within 90 days before a party nominating convention, or after the start of the absentee voting period before a presidential nomination primary or a regular or special state or local primary or general election. Penalties depend on the circumstances: repeat violations within five years of a prior conviction can draw up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine (felony-level), violations intended to cause violence or bodily harm cap at 364 days and $3,000 (gross misdemeanor), and other violations cap at 90 days and $1,000 (misdemeanor).
Minnesota's 2023 c 58 deepfake package (enacted May 26, 2023, eff. Aug. 1, 2023) specifically targets video deepfakes: Minn. Stat. Section 617.262 criminalizes the dissemination of nonconsensual AI-generated intimate images (deep fakes) -- consenting to a deep fake's creation is not a defense to a dissemination prosecution, but the statute does not separately criminalize creation alone; Minn. Stat. Section 604.32 creates a civil cause of action for NCII deepfakes. General and special damages, profit disgorgement, and attorney fees are recoverable without a statutory cap, while a separate civil penalty line item is capped at up to $100,000. The election deepfake statute (Section 609.771) survived a preliminary-injunction challenge in Kohls v. Ellison (denial January 2025, affirmed by the Eighth Circuit February 2026 on delay grounds without reaching the merits). As AI video generation technology advances, these statutes are the primary framework for addressing deepfake misuse in Minnesota.
The Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (MCDPA), effective July 31, 2025, adds protections for biometric data that could be extracted from video, including facial geometry and other biometric identifiers used in facial recognition systems.
Using Video Recordings as Evidence in Minnesota
Authentication Requirements
Video recordings are admissible as evidence in Minnesota courts when properly authenticated under Minnesota Rules of Evidence, Rule 901. Authentication typically requires:
- Testimony from the person who made the recording or operated the camera
- Evidence that the recording accurately depicts the events it purports to show
- Chain of custody documentation showing the recording was preserved without alteration
- Digital metadata supporting the recording's date, time, and authenticity
Legal vs. Illegal Recordings
Recordings made in violation of Minnesota law are generally inadmissible in court. If a video was made through surreptitious surveillance in a private location in violation of Section 609.746, it would likely be excluded from evidence. The person who made the illegal recording could also face criminal charges.
Legally obtained video recordings, including those made in public spaces or with proper consent, are routinely admitted as evidence in criminal and civil proceedings throughout Minnesota.
Common Evidentiary Uses
Video recordings are frequently used in Minnesota courts for:
- Personal injury cases showing the circumstances of an accident
- Criminal cases capturing crimes in progress
- Employment disputes documenting workplace incidents
- Family law matters showing parenting behavior or living conditions
- Property disputes documenting conditions or boundary issues
- Insurance claims supporting or refuting damage claims
Criminal Penalties Summary
Minnesota imposes penalties for illegal video recording under multiple statutes:
| Statute | Offense | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 609.746 | Surreptitious surveillance (first offense) | Gross misdemeanor | 364 days / $3,000 |
| Section 609.746 | Surreptitious surveillance (repeat/minor) | Felony | 2 years / $5,000 |
| Section 617.261 | Nonconsensual image dissemination (first) | Gross misdemeanor | 1 year / $3,000 |
| Section 617.261 | Nonconsensual image dissemination (aggravated) | Felony | 3 years / $5,000 |
| Section 626A.02 | Illegal interception (audio in video) | Felony | 5 years / $20,000 |
More Minnesota 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 Minnesota Recording Laws
More Minnesota Recording Topics
More Minnesota Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record video in public in Minnesota?
Yes. Minnesota has no general prohibition on video recording in public spaces. You can film on public streets, sidewalks, parks, and in government buildings open to the public. The First Amendment protects the right to record matters of public interest. If your video captures audio, the one-party consent rule applies to the audio portion.
Is it illegal to record someone without their consent in Minnesota?
It depends on the circumstances. Video recording someone in public is generally legal without consent. However, surreptitiously recording someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a bathroom, locker room, or bedroom, violates Minn. Stat. Section 609.746 and is a gross misdemeanor or felony.
What is the penalty for sharing intimate images without consent in Minnesota?
Under Minn. Stat. Section 617.261, nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images is a gross misdemeanor for a first offense (up to 1 year in jail and $3,000 fine) and can be a felony for repeat offenses or cases involving significant harm (up to 3 years and $5,000). Victims can also sue for damages under Section 604.31.
Can I install security cameras on my property in Minnesota?
Yes. You can install video cameras on your own property for security purposes. Cameras can cover your yard, driveway, and entrances. They should not be aimed into a neighbor's private spaces like bedrooms or bathrooms. Audio-enabled cameras must comply with one-party consent rules under Section 626A.02.
Does Minnesota law address deepfake videos?
Yes. Minn. Stat. Section 609.771 prohibits using deepfake audio or video to influence elections, with the restricted window tied to a party nominating convention or the start of an election's absentee voting period rather than a flat 90 days before Election Day. Penalties range from a 90-day misdemeanor to a 5-year felony for repeat violations, depending on the circumstances. The state also criminalizes disseminating nonconsensual AI-generated intimate images. The MCDPA adds protections for biometric data that could be used to create or enable deepfake technology.
Updates
Hedged the claim that the First Amendment protects recording police officers to reflect that the Eighth Circuit, which covers Minnesota, has not clearly established that specific right, and corrected the Section 609.746 gross misdemeanor maximum from 1 year to the statutory 364 days in both penalty tables.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the deepfake law section: Minn. Stat. 609.771's election-deepfake window is tied to a nominating convention or the start of absentee voting (not a flat 90 days before Election Day) and only its repeat-offense tier is a felony; 617.262 criminalizes disseminating, not creating, nonconsensual AI-generated intimate images; and 604.32's $100,000 figure caps only the civil penalty line item, not the whole recovery.
Corrected the public changelog entry so it no longer implies Section 604.32's entire civil deepfake remedy is capped at $100,000; only a specific civil-penalty line item carries that cap, while compensatory damages and fees remain uncapped.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Added 2023 c 58 [deepfake](/us-laws/deepfake-laws) package: § 617.262 criminal NCII deepfake and § 604.32 civil NCII deepfake ($100K civil penalty cap; uncapped compensatory damages/fees also available), both eff. Aug. 1 2023; noted Kohls v. Ellison PI denial (January 2025, affirmed by the Eighth Circuit February 2026 on delay grounds) re § 609.771 election deepfake; added deepfake sources to SourcesList.
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.
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 609: CRIMINAL CODE
§ 609.746INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVACYIn forcecited in 17 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Surreptitious intrusion; observation device. (a) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who: (1) enters upon another's property; (2) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling of another; and (3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household. (b) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who: (1) enters upon another's property; (2) surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling of another; and (3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 15 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Pakhnyuk (2019) held the intent to intrude on privacy in section 609.746, subd. 1(a) attaches only to the peeping, not to entering the property. State v. Ulmer (2006) applied subd. 1(c) to a public restroom, holding the space above a urinal partition is an aperture and the shielded space is private.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Pakhnyuk (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2019, 926 N.W.2d 914)✓A houseguest sat on the roof and watched a 14-year-old undressing through a bedroom window; the Minnesota Supreme Court held the intent to intrude element attaches only to the peeping clause, not to entering the property, and affirmed the conviction.
- State v. Ulmer (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2006, 719 N.W.2d 213)✓A man leaned over a urinal partition in a store restroom to watch a seven-year-old boy urinate; the court of appeals held a user has an expectation of privacy in that partitioned space and that the gap above the partition is an aperture under the statute.
- State v. Morris (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2002, 644 N.W.2d 114)✓A man carried a camera concealed in a bag and filmed up a store clerk's skirt; the court of appeals held the area under a skirt is a place with an expectation of privacy and the camera itself an aperture, and rejected the commercial-establishment exemption.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Privacy, and Rights, Minnesota Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Provider Rules, Minnesota Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Privacy Rules
§ 609.771USE OF DEEP FAKE TECHNOLOGY TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) As used in this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Candidate" means an individual who seeks nomination or election to a federal, statewide, legislative, judicial, or local office including special districts, school districts, towns, home rule charter and statutory cities, and counties. (c) "Deep fake" means any video recording, motion-picture film, sound recording, electronic image, or photograph, or any technological representation of speech or conduct substantially derivative thereof: (1) that is so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it depicts speech or conduct of an individual who did not in fact engage in such speech or conduct; and (2) the production of which was substantially dependent upon technical means, rather than the ability of another individual to physically or verbally impersonate such individual. (d) "Depicted individual" means an individual in a deep fake who appears to be engaging in speech or conduct in which the individual did not engage. Subd. 2. Violation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Christopher Kohls v. Keith Ellison (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2026)“…dual who did not in fact engage in such speech or conduct.” Minn. Stat. § 609.771, subd. 1(c)(1). The district court* det…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 604: CIVIL LIABILITY
§ 604.31CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NONCONSENSUAL DISSEMINATION OF PRIVATE SEXUAL IMAGES; SEXUAL SOLICITATIONIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images. (a) A cause of action against a person for the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images exists when: (1) a person disseminated an image without the consent of the person depicted in the image; (2) the image is of an individual depicted in a sexual act or whose intimate parts are exposed in whole or in part; (3) the person is identifiable: (i) from the image itself, by the person depicted in the image or by another person; or (ii) from the personal information displayed in connection with the image; and (4) the image was obtained or created under circumstances in which the person depicted had a reasonable expectation of privacy. (b) The fact that the individual depicted in the image consented to the creation of the image or to the voluntary private transmission of the image is not a defense to liability for a person who has disseminated the image without consent. Subd. 2. Nonconsensual sexual solicitation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Fredin v. Miller (District Court, D. Minnesota 2020)“…nts used his personal information to solicit sexual acts. Minn. Stat. § 604.31, subd. 2 (2016). Accordingly, t…”
- Fredin v. Middlecamp (District Court, D. Minnesota 2020)“…nts used his personal information to solicit sexual acts. Minn. Stat. § 604.31, subd. 2 (2016). Accordingly, t…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Security Camera Laws: Residential, Commercial, and Privacy Rules, Minnesota Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections
§ 604.32CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NONCONSENSUAL DISSEMINATION OF A DEEP FAKE DEPICTING INTIMATE PARTS OR SEXUAL ACTSIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) As used in this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Deep fake" means any video recording, motion-picture film, sound recording, electronic image, or photograph, or any technological representation of speech or conduct substantially derivative thereof: (1) that is so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it depicts speech or conduct of an individual; and (2) the production of which was substantially dependent upon technical means, rather than the ability of another individual to physically or verbally impersonate such individual. (c) "Depicted individual" means an individual in a deep fake who appears to be engaging in speech or conduct in which the individual did not engage. (d) "Intimate parts" means the genitals, pubic area, partially or fully exposed nipple, or anus of an individual.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Also relied on in: Minnesota Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Minnesota AI Laws and Regulation (2026), Minnesota Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 617: ABORTION; OBSCENITY; NUISANCE
§ 617.261NONCONSENSUAL DISSEMINATION OF PRIVATE SEXUAL IMAGESIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Crime. It is a crime to intentionally disseminate an image of another person who is depicted in a sexual act or whose intimate parts are exposed, in whole or in part, when: (1) the person is identifiable: (i) from the image itself, by the person depicted in the image or by another person; or (ii) from personal information displayed in connection with the image; (2) the actor knows or reasonably should know that the person depicted in the image does not consent to the dissemination; and (3) the image was obtained or created under circumstances in which the actor knew or reasonably should have known the person depicted had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Subd. 2. Penalties. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), whoever violates subdivision 1 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, Appellant (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2025)“…individual is female, a partially or fully exposed nipple.” Minn. Stat. § 617.261, subd. 7(e) (2024); see also Minn. Sta…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
§ 617.262NONCONSENSUAL DISSEMINATION OF A DEEP FAKE DEPICTING INTIMATE PARTS OR SEXUAL ACTSIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Definitions. (a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given. (b) "Deep fake" means any video recording, motion-picture film, sound recording, electronic image, or photograph, or any technological representation of speech or conduct substantially derivative thereof: (1) that is so realistic that a reasonable person would believe it depicts speech or conduct of an individual; and (2) the production of which was substantially dependent upon technical means, rather than the ability of another individual to physically or verbally impersonate such individual. (c) "Depicted individual" means an individual in a deep fake who appears to be engaging in speech or conduct in which the individual did not engage. (d) "Dissemination" means distribution to one or more persons, other than the individual depicted in the deep fake, or publication by any publicly available medium. (e) "Harass" means an act that would cause a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of a reasonable person. (f) "Intimate parts" means the genitals, pubic area, anus, or partially or fully exposed nipple of an individual.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State of Minnesota, Respondent, vs. Eloisa Rubi Plancarte, Appellant (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2025)“…ipple.” Minn. Stat. § 617.261, subd. 7(e) (2024); see also Minn. Stat. § 617.262, subd. 1(f) (2024) (using a similar de…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 422 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.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Minn. Stat. Section 626A.02 - Interception and Disclosure(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. Section 609.746 - Interference with Privacy(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. Section 617.261 - Nonconsensual Dissemination(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. Section 604.31 - Civil Action for Nonconsensual Dissemination(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. Section 609.771 - Deepfakes(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Minnesota Rules of Evidence Rule 901(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- Minn. Stat. Section 617.262 - Criminal NCII Deepfake(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. Section 604.32 - Civil Action for NCII Deepfake(revisor.mn.gov).gov