Minnesota Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections

Minnesota prohibits surreptitious use of any device to observe, photograph, or record people in private places under Minn. Stat. 609.746. A first offense is a gross misdemeanor carrying up to one year in jail and a $3,000 fine, with felony penalties for repeat offenses or cases involving minors.

Overview of Minnesota Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws

Minnesota takes a strong stance against voyeurism and hidden camera surveillance. The state has multiple statutes that address different aspects of invasive recording, from surreptitious surveillance in private spaces to the distribution of intimate images without consent. These laws protect individuals' privacy and dignity against both physical surveillance devices and digital distribution of private content.

The primary statutes governing voyeurism and hidden cameras in Minnesota include:

• Minn. Stat. Section 609.746 (interference with privacy)
• Minn. Stat. Section 617.261 (nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images)
• Minn. Stat. Section 604.31 (civil action for nonconsensual dissemination)
• Minn. Stat. Section 609.771 (deepfake restrictions)

Interference with Privacy: Minn. Stat. Section 609.746

What the Statute Prohibits

Minn. Stat. Section 609.746 is Minnesota's primary anti-voyeurism statute. It makes it a crime to surreptitiously use any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window, door, or other aperture of a dwelling or other place of residence, or in any place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy.

The statute covers a wide range of conduct:

• Installing hidden cameras in bathrooms, bedrooms, locker rooms, or changing areas
• Using devices to look through windows into private residences
• Photographing or recording someone in a state of undress without their knowledge
• Using telescopes, binoculars, or other optical devices to observe private activities from outside a dwelling
• Placing cameras under clothing to capture upskirt images
• Using any technology to observe or record where a reasonable person expects privacy

The word "surreptitiously" is central to the statute. It means acting in a secret, stealthy manner. Open and obvious surveillance in public spaces is not covered by this statute.

Statutory Exemptions

Minn. Stat. Section 609.746, subdivision 1, paragraph (k) exempts certain conduct from the statute's core prohibitions. Paragraphs (b), (d), and (e) do not apply to law enforcement officers or corrections investigators acting within their lawful duties. Paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), which cover hidden-camera recording of intimate parts, do not apply to conduct in a medical facility, or in a commercial establishment if the owner has posted conspicuous signs warning that the premises are under surveillance by the owner or employees. These exemptions do not extend to residential rental units or other non-commercial settings.

Criminal Penalties

The penalties for interference with privacy escalate based on prior offenses and whether minors are involved:

Disseminating images obtained through a Section 609.746 violation is a separate offense under Minn. Stat. Section 617.261, punishable by up to 3 years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

A conviction for interference with privacy, particularly involving minors, can also trigger sex offender registration requirements under Minn. Stat. Section 243.166, depending on the specific circumstances and the court's findings.

What Constitutes a "Place of Residence"

The statute specifically protects dwellings and other places of residence, including:

• Single-family homes and apartments
• Hotel and motel rooms
• Dormitory rooms
• Hospital rooms (for inpatients)
• Group homes and assisted living facilities
• Temporary shelters

The statute also extends to any place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy, which includes non-residential settings like restrooms, locker rooms, fitting rooms, and similar enclosed spaces.

The "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" Standard

Minnesota courts evaluate whether a person had a reasonable expectation of privacy by looking at two factors:

1. Subjective expectation. Did the person actually believe they were not being observed or recorded?
2. Objective reasonableness. Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances have the same expectation?

Both factors must be present. A person who is naked in a bathroom has both a subjective and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. A person standing on a public sidewalk has no reasonable expectation that they are not being observed, regardless of their subjective belief.

Nonconsensual Dissemination of Intimate Images

Minn. Stat. Section 617.261

Minn. Stat. Section 617.261 criminalizes what is commonly known as "revenge porn," the distribution of intimate images without the depicted person's consent. The statute makes it a crime to intentionally disseminate 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 person disseminating the image knew or should have known that the depicted person did not consent.

The statute covers distribution through any medium, including:

• Social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, X, TikTok, etc.)
• Messaging apps (text messages, WhatsApp, Telegram, etc.)
• Email
• Websites and forums
• Physical distribution (printed copies)
• Peer-to-peer file sharing

Penalties for Nonconsensual Dissemination

"Significant harm" can include serious emotional distress, loss of employment, damage to reputation, or other demonstrable injury to the victim.

Elements of the Offense

To secure a conviction under Section 617.261, prosecutors must prove:

1. The defendant intentionally disseminated an image
2. The image depicted another person in a sexual act or with intimate parts exposed
3. The person depicted did not consent to the dissemination
4. The defendant knew or reasonably should have known the person did not consent

Consent to being photographed or recorded does not automatically constitute consent to dissemination. A person who agreed to be photographed in an intimate setting has not necessarily agreed to have those images shared with others.

Civil Remedies for Victims

Minn. Stat. Section 604.31

Victims of nonconsensual image dissemination have a powerful civil remedy under Minn. Stat. Section 604.31. This statute allows victims to file civil lawsuits against the person who disseminated their images. Available remedies include:

• Actual damages including emotional distress, therapy costs, lost wages, and other economic losses
• Statutory damages as provided by the statute
• Injunctive relief ordering the defendant to stop disseminating images and remove existing copies
• Attorney fees and court costs awarded to the prevailing plaintiff

The civil remedy is separate from criminal prosecution. A victim can pursue both a criminal complaint and a civil lawsuit, and success in one does not depend on the other.

Civil Claims Under Section 626A.13

If the voyeurism involved illegal audio interception (for example, a hidden camera that also recorded audio), the victim may also have a civil claim under Minn. Stat. Section 626A.13. This statute provides:

• Two-prong damages (whichever is greater): treble actual damages plus any profits from the violation, OR statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day or $10,000
• Punitive damages at the court's discretion
• Attorney fees and litigation costs

Restraining Orders

Victims of voyeurism and nonconsensual image sharing can seek harassment restraining orders under Minn. Stat. Section 609.748. A restraining order can prohibit the offender from contacting the victim and from further disseminating intimate images.

Common Voyeurism Scenarios in Minnesota

Hidden Cameras in Rental Properties

Landlords or previous tenants who install hidden cameras in rental units violate Section 609.746. Common hiding places include:

• Smoke detector housings
• Electrical outlets and power strips
• Clock radios and alarm clocks
• Bathroom vents and fixtures
• Picture frames and decorative items
• Behind mirrors

Tenants who discover hidden cameras should contact law enforcement immediately and preserve the device as evidence if possible without disturbing it. For more information about camera issues in rental properties, see our page on Minnesota landlord-tenant recording laws.

Hidden Cameras in Hotels and Vacation Rentals

Guests at hotels, motels, and vacation rentals (Airbnb, Vrbo) have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their rented spaces. Hosts or property managers who install hidden cameras in bedrooms, bathrooms, or other private areas of rental properties violate Section 609.746.

Vacation rental platforms have policies requiring hosts to disclose any cameras on the property. Undisclosed cameras in private areas violate both platform policies and Minnesota law.

Workplace Hidden Cameras

Employers who place hidden cameras in restrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, or other private spaces in the workplace violate Section 609.746. Workplace voyeurism can also give rise to sexual harassment claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. Chapter 363A).

For more about workplace surveillance, see our page on Minnesota workplace recording laws.

Upskirt and Downblouse Photography

Using a camera to capture images under a person's clothing or down their shirt without consent constitutes surreptitious surveillance under Section 609.746, even in public settings. The victim has a reasonable expectation that the covered portions of their body are not being photographed.

Peeping Tom Activity

Traditional peeping tom behavior, using binoculars, cameras, or other devices to observe people inside their homes through windows, is squarely covered by Section 609.746. Modern technology has expanded the tools available for this type of surveillance (drones, high-powered cameras, night vision devices), but the law covers any device used for surreptitious observation.

Deepfake and AI-Generated Intimate Images

Minnesota's Deepfake Laws

Minnesota has addressed the growing problem of AI-generated intimate images. Creating realistic synthetic images that depict a real person in sexual situations without their consent is illegal. The state has enacted provisions that:

• Criminalize the creation of AI-generated intimate images without consent
• Prohibit the distribution of synthetic intimate content depicting real people
• Allow victims to pursue civil remedies for AI-generated intimate images

Minn. Stat. Section 609.771 addresses deepfakes in the context of elections, prohibiting their use to injure a candidate or influence an election's result within 90 days before a political party nominating convention, or after the start of the absentee voting period before a primary or general election. A First Amendment challenge to this statute failed on procedural grounds: the district court denied a preliminary injunction in January 2025 because the plaintiff had unreasonably delayed in seeking relief, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed that denial in Kohls v. Ellison, No. 25-1300 (8th Cir. Feb. 9, 2026). The merits of the First Amendment challenge remain undecided on remand in the district court. Minnesota's 2023 c 58 deepfake package (signed May 26, 2023, effective Aug. 1, 2023) added two critical provisions: Minn. Stat. Section 617.262 criminalizes nonconsensual AI-generated intimate images (NCII deepfakes); and Minn. Stat. Section 604.32 creates a civil cause of action for NCII deepfakes with up to $100,000 in damages. The existing nonconsensual dissemination statute (Section 617.261) remains the primary remedy for non-AI intimate images.

The MCDPA and Biometric Data

The Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (MCDPA), effective July 31, 2025, adds protections for biometric data that could be used to create deepfakes. Facial geometry data, voiceprints, and other biometric identifiers are classified as sensitive data requiring consent before collection and processing.

Defenses to Voyeurism Charges

Consent

Consent is a complete defense to voyeurism charges. If the person being observed or recorded knew about and agreed to the surveillance, no violation has occurred. However, consent must be knowing and voluntary. Consent obtained through deception or coercion is not valid.

Lack of Surreptitious Conduct

The statute requires that the surveillance be surreptitious (secret or stealthy). If the camera was openly visible and the person knew or should have known they were being recorded, the "surreptitious" element may not be satisfied.

No Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

If the recording occurred in a location where the person had no reasonable expectation of privacy (such as a public street or park), the statute does not apply. The defendant bears the burden of showing that the location did not give rise to a privacy expectation.

Law Enforcement Authorization

Law enforcement officers conducting authorized surveillance under a valid court order are exempt from the voyeurism statute. The surveillance must be conducted in accordance with the terms of the court order.

Reporting Voyeurism in Minnesota

How to Report

Victims of voyeurism or hidden camera surveillance should:

1. Contact local law enforcement to file a police report. Provide as much detail as possible about the device, its location, and how it was discovered.
2. Do not disturb the device if it can be safely left in place for law enforcement to collect as evidence.
3. Document the discovery with photographs showing the device's location and orientation.
4. Consult with an attorney about criminal complaints and civil remedies.
5. Contact the Minnesota Department of Human Rights if the voyeurism occurred in a workplace, housing, or public accommodation setting.

Victim Resources

Minnesota victims of voyeurism and nonconsensual image distribution can access resources through:

• The Minnesota Office of Justice Programs for victim services and compensation
• Local victim advocacy organizations
• The Cyber Civil Rights Initiative for help removing nonconsensual images from the internet

Penalties Summary

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

• Minnesota Biometric Privacy Laws
• Surveillance Camera Laws

More Minnesota Laws

• Minnesota AI Meeting Recording Laws
• Minnesota Dashcam Laws
• Minnesota Data Privacy Laws
• Minnesota Deepfake Laws
• Minnesota Employee Monitoring Laws
• Minnesota GPS Tracking Laws
• Minnesota Police Bodycam Laws
• Minnesota Smart Glasses Recording Laws