Missouri
Missouri Video Recording Laws: Public Spaces, Private Property, and Consent Rules
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 7, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Missouri permits video recording in any public space where you have a legal right to be, and no state statute restricts video-only footage. When audio is captured alongside video, one-party consent law under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 542.402 applies. Recording someone in a private location where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy is prohibited.
Missouri does not have a single comprehensive video recording statute. Instead, video recording is governed by a combination of wiretapping laws, voyeurism statutes, trespassing laws, and constitutional protections. The general rule is straightforward: you can record video in any public place where you have a legal right to be. Restrictions apply primarily when audio is captured alongside video, when recording occurs on private property without permission, or when the recording invades someone's reasonable expectation of privacy.
This guide breaks down every aspect of Missouri video recording law, from public filming rights to private property rules, audio consent requirements, and penalties for illegal recording.
Video Recording in Public Spaces
Your Right to Film in Public
Missouri recognizes a broad right to record video in public spaces. There is no state statute that restricts video-only recording in areas open to the public. You can legally film on:
- Public streets, sidewalks, and highways
- City and state parks
- Government buildings open to the public (lobbies, courtrooms during permitted sessions)
- Public transit stations and vehicles
- Shopping centers, malls, and retail stores (subject to the property owner's rules)
- Public events, parades, and demonstrations
This right derives from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the gathering of information in public spaces. Federal courts, including the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Missouri), have recognized that recording in public is a form of protected expression.
What You Can Film in Public
When you stand in a public place, you can record anything visible from that location. This includes:
- Other people walking, talking, or going about their activities
- Buildings, vehicles, and infrastructure
- Police officers and other government officials performing their duties
- Protests, rallies, and public gatherings
- Traffic conditions and road incidents
People in public spaces generally have a reduced expectation of privacy. Missouri courts apply an objective standard: if a reasonable person in the same situation would not expect privacy, recording is permitted.
Limitations on Public Recording
Even in public, there are boundaries:
- You cannot use recording as a tool for harassment or stalking. Missouri's harassment statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 565.090, prohibits conduct that serves no legitimate purpose and causes emotional distress. Repeatedly filming someone to intimidate them could qualify.
- You cannot obstruct traffic or public safety operations to get a better recording angle.
- You cannot trespass on private property to film something in a public area. If you step onto private land to record, you lose the protection that public-space filming provides.
- Drone recording is subject to FAA regulations. Missouri does not currently have a dedicated statute governing drone privacy or civilian drone recording. Drone footage that captures a person in a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy can still trigger the general voyeurism statute, section 565.252, and flying a drone onto private property to record can support a trespassing charge under section 569.140.
Video Recording on Private Property
Property Owner's Authority
On private property, the property owner or occupant sets the rules for recording. A business can post "no recording" signs and ask you to stop filming. If you refuse, the property owner can ask you to leave. If you do not leave after being asked, you can be charged with trespassing under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 569.140 (trespass in the first degree) or Section 569.150 (trespass in the second degree).
Key points about private property recording:
- Businesses open to the public can still restrict recording. A store, restaurant, or theater can prohibit filming even though the public is invited in.
- Your own property gives you broad recording rights. You can install security cameras and record video on your property, including areas visible from your property.
- Common areas in apartments or condos are governed by the property management company or homeowners association rules.
Recording Inside Someone Else's Home
Recording video inside another person's home without their knowledge raises serious legal concerns. While Missouri's wiretapping statute focuses on audio, video recording in private spaces where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy can lead to charges under Missouri's voyeurism or invasion of privacy statutes.
If you are a guest in someone's home, you should not place hidden cameras. If the homeowner allows recording, that permission governs.
When Audio Consent Applies to Video Recording
The Audio Component Rule
Missouri's wiretapping law under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 542.402 governs the interception of wire and oral communications. Video-only recording (without audio) does not fall under this statute. However, the moment you capture audio alongside video, the one-party consent requirement kicks in.
This means:
- Video without audio in a public space requires no consent from anyone
- Video with audio requires that at least one party to any captured conversation consent to the recording
- If you are filming in public and your camera picks up conversations of nearby strangers (conversations you are not part of), you should be cautious about capturing clear audio of private conversations
Practical Applications
| Scenario | Audio Consent Needed? |
|---|---|
| Filming a street scene with ambient noise | Generally no, if no private conversations are clearly captured |
| Recording a conversation you are part of on video | No additional consent needed (you are the consenting party) |
| Hidden camera with audio in your home | Yes, you must be a party to conversations captured |
| Security camera with audio recording visitors | One party to any recorded conversation must consent |
| Video recording a public meeting | No, public meetings have no privacy expectation |
Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws
Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 565.252: Voyeurism
Missouri criminalizes voyeuristic recording under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 565.252. This statute makes it illegal to photograph, film, or record another person in a state of full or partial nudity without that person's knowledge and consent, when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Key elements of the offense:
- The victim must be in a state of full or partial nudity
- The victim must have a reasonable expectation of privacy
- The recording must be made without the victim's knowledge and consent
- The offender must act for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, or must distribute the images
Upskirting and Non-Nudity Privacy Invasions
Missouri once had a separate statute, section 565.253, covering privacy invasions that did not require nudity, such as upskirting and hidden cameras in bathrooms or changing rooms. Section 565.253 was repealed effective January 1, 2017, when the legislature consolidated invasion-of-privacy offenses. That conduct is not a gap in current law: section 565.252 itself separately reaches creating an image under or through a person's clothing to view the body or undergarments without consent, which covers upskirting even in public places, and it reaches recording a person's nudity in a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy, which covers hidden cameras in bathrooms, changing rooms, and bedrooms. A telephoto lens used from a public space to look into a private window without consent can also trigger section 565.252 if the person recorded is nude or partially nude, or is being viewed under or through their clothing.
Penalties for Voyeurism Offenses
| Offense | Classification | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Voyeurism (Section 565.252) | Class A misdemeanor | Up to 1 year in jail, $2,000 fine |
| Aggravated voyeurism (dissemination, multiple victims in the same course of conduct, or a prior conviction) | Class E felony | Up to 4 years in prison |
Nonconsensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images
Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 573.110: Revenge Porn Law
Missouri enacted its revenge porn statute to address the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 573.110 makes it a crime to intentionally disseminate an image of another person who is fully or partially nude, or engaged in sexual conduct, when:
- The image was obtained under circumstances where the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy
- The person did not consent to the dissemination
- The dissemination was made with the intent to harass, threaten, or coerce
This offense is classified as a Class D felony for a first offense, carrying up to 7 years in prison. Effective August 28, 2026, 2026 H.B. 2273 (short title "Evan's Voice Act") amends section 573.110 to make the offense a Class C felony (up to 10 years) when the victim is a minor or a vulnerable person, broadens the statute's "image" definition, and adds a mandatory-restitution provision at the new section 573.114.
Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 573.112: Threatening Dissemination
Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 573.112 separately criminalizes threatening to disseminate private sexual images as a form of coercion or manipulation. This offense is a Class E felony for a first offense, punishable by up to 4 years in prison. Effective August 28, 2026, the same 2026 H.B. 2273 amendment escalates section 573.112 to a four-tier structure: Class E for a first offense, Class D for a second offense, Class C for a third or subsequent offense, and Class B (5 to 15 years) if the victim is a minor or a vulnerable person or the threat causes serious injury or death.
Video Recording and First Amendment Protections
Constitutional Framework
The First Amendment protects the right to gather information, including through video recording. While the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly ruled on a standalone right to record, multiple federal circuit courts have recognized this right. The Eighth Circuit, which includes Missouri, has addressed recording rights in the context of filming police officers and government activities.
Missouri Sunshine Law and Video Recording
Missouri's Sunshine Law under Mo. Rev. Stat. Chapter 610 requires that public governmental body meetings be open to the public. Section 610.020 specifically states that recording of public meetings must be allowed. This means you have a statutory right to video record:
- City council meetings
- County commission meetings
- School board meetings
- State legislative proceedings
- Public hearings and forums
Public bodies cannot ban video recording of their open meetings. They can impose reasonable restrictions on the manner of recording (such as requiring tripods to be placed in designated areas), but they cannot prohibit recording entirely.
Video Recording and Property Disputes
Neighbor Disputes Over Cameras
Missouri law allows you to install security cameras on your own property, including cameras that capture portions of neighboring properties visible from your land. However, deliberately pointing a camera at a neighbor's windows, private yard areas, or other spaces where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy could give rise to civil liability for invasion of privacy.
Missouri recognizes the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, which requires intentional intrusion into another person's private affairs in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. A camera positioned to peer into a neighbor's bedroom window could support such a claim.
HOA and Community Rules
Homeowners associations in Missouri can adopt rules governing the placement and use of security cameras in common areas and on individual lots. These rules are enforceable as part of the HOA's governing documents, and violations can result in fines or other penalties imposed by the association.
Federal Video Privacy Laws
Video Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. Section 2710)
The federal Video Privacy Protection Act protects the privacy of video rental and streaming records. While this law does not directly govern personal video recording, it is relevant for businesses that maintain records of customer video viewing habits.
Federal Wiretap Act and Video
The federal Wiretap Act under 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 primarily addresses audio interception, not video-only recording. Video recording without audio does not trigger federal wiretap liability. However, when video recording captures audio, the federal one-party consent standard applies.
Using Video Recordings as Evidence in Missouri
Admissibility Standards
Video recordings are admissible in Missouri courts if they meet basic evidentiary requirements:
- Authentication: A witness must testify that the recording accurately depicts what it purports to show
- Relevance: The video must relate to a fact at issue in the case
- Chain of custody: The offering party should demonstrate that the recording has not been tampered with or altered
Metadata and Digital Evidence
Modern video files contain metadata (date, time, GPS coordinates, device information) that can help authenticate the recording. Missouri courts increasingly accept digital metadata as supporting evidence of authenticity. Preserving the original file without editing strengthens its evidentiary value.
Explore More Missouri Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism Laws | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant Recording | Dashcam Laws | School Recording | Medical Recording
Back to Missouri Recording Laws
More Missouri Recording Topics
More Missouri Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record video in public places in Missouri?
Yes. Missouri has no statute prohibiting video recording in public spaces. You can film on streets, sidewalks, parks, and other public areas. The First Amendment protects your right to record in places where you have a legal right to be.
Do I need consent to record video in Missouri?
For video-only recording in public, no consent is needed. If your video captures audio of a conversation, Missouri one-party consent law under Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 542.402 requires that at least one party to the conversation consent. On private property, the property owner can restrict or prohibit recording.
Is it illegal to record someone with a hidden camera in Missouri?
It depends on the location and circumstances. Placing a hidden camera in a location where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a bathroom, bedroom, or changing room, is illegal under Missouri voyeurism statutes. Hidden cameras in your own home in common areas are generally legal, but capturing audio requires one-party consent.
What is Missouri's revenge porn law?
Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 573.110 makes it a Class D felony (up to 7 years in prison) to intentionally disseminate intimate images of another person without their consent when done with the intent to harass, threaten, or coerce, rising to a Class C felony if the victim is a minor or vulnerable person starting August 28, 2026. Threatening to disseminate such images is a Class E felony under Section 573.112 for a first offense, escalating to Class D, Class C, and Class B under a 2026 amendment (H.B. 2273) effective the same date.
Can I record video at a public government meeting in Missouri?
Yes. Missouri Sunshine Law under Mo. Rev. Stat. Chapter 610 requires that public meetings be open to the public and that recording be permitted. Public bodies cannot prohibit video recording of their open meetings, though they can set reasonable rules about where equipment is placed.
Updates
Removed a fabricated drone-privacy statute citation and a repealed statute (565.253, dead since 2017) that were both presented as current law, removed a fabricated age-based felony aggravator for the voyeurism statute, and added Missouri's new 2026 felony-tier escalation for the nonconsensual-image statutes (effective August 28, 2026, H.B. 2273).
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
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.
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 565
§ 565.252Invasion of privacy, penalty.In forcecited in 13 of our articles
1. A person commits the offense of invasion of privacy if he or she knowingly: (1) Photographs, films, videotapes, produces, or otherwise creates an image of another person, without the person's consent, while the person is in a state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or (2) Photographs, films, videotapes, produces, or otherwise creates an image of another person under or through the clothing worn by that other person for the purpose of viewing the body of or the undergarments worn by that other person without that person's consent.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Alexander (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2009, 574 F.3d 484)“…contends, because the Missouri invasioh-of-privacy statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 565.252, only prohibits the filming of a nude p…”
- T.S.H. v. Green (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2021, 996 F.3d 915)“…e where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252.1(1). Reasonable officers could have be…”
- United States v. Michael Alexander (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2009)“…contends, because the Missouri invasion-of-privacy statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252, only prohibits the filming of a nude p…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 565.090Harassment, first degree, penalty.In force
1. A person commits the offense of harassment in the first degree if he or she, without good cause, engages in any act with the purpose to cause emotional distress to another person, and such act does cause such person to suffer emotional distress. 2. The offense of harassment in the first degree is a class E felony. 3. This section shall not apply to activities of federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement officers conducting investigations of violation of federal, state, county, or municipal law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 33 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Koetting (Missouri Court of Appeals 1985, 691 S.W.2d 328)“…nty of three counts of telephone harassment in violation of § 565.090 RSMo 1978. In a jury waived trial the defend…”
- State v. Placke (Missouri Court of Appeals 1987, 733 S.W.2d 847)“…nonymously; or (4) [m]akes repeated telephone calls. Section 565.090 RSMo 1978. The sufficiency of the evi…”
- State v. Rafaeli (Missouri Court of Appeals 1995, 905 S.W.2d 516)“…afaeli, appeals from his conviction by jury for harassment, RSMo § 565.090 (1986), for which appellant was fined $…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVII (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE), Chapter 542
§ 542.402Penalty for illegal wiretapping, permitted activities.In forcecited in 17 of our articles
1. Except as otherwise specifically provided in sections 542.400 to 542.422, a person is guilty of a class E felony and upon conviction shall be punished as provided by law, if such person: (1) Knowingly intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire communication; (2) Knowingly 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 transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication; provided, however, that nothing in sections 542.400 to 542.422 shall be construed to prohibit the use by law enforcement officers of body microphones and transmitters in undercover investigations for the acquisition of evidence and the protection of law enforcement officers and others working under their direction in such investigations; (3) Knowingly discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire communication, when he knows or has reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire communication in…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Federal courts in Missouri have applied section 542.402 to covert audio recording. Fotoohighiam v. The City of Columbia Missouri (2025) let a wiretap count over recorded attorney-client jail calls proceed, with no prior consent shown, and Ward (2026) found a claim over a secretly recorded workplace conversation would not be futile.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514)“…nn. § 750 .539e (West 1991); Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 (2000); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 (2000); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-702 (19…”
- Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A. (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1999, 191 F.3d 463)“…p. 1995); Minn.Stat. Ann. §§ 626A.02, 626A.13 (West 1998); Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 542.402 , 542.418 (1996); Mont.Code Ann. § 45-8…”
- John Doe v. SSM Health Care Corporation (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2025, 126 F.4th 1329)✓Patients alleged a hospital's patient portal secretly sent health data to Facebook, pleading a Missouri wiretap claim under 542.402; the Eighth Circuit addressed only removal, held the wiretap count did not change that analysis, and affirmed remand without reaching its merits.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 569
§ 569.140Trespass in the first degree — penalty.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
1. A person commits the offense of trespass in the first degree if he or she knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure or upon real property. 2. A person does not commit the offense of trespass in the first degree by entering or remaining upon real property unless the real property is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders or as to which notice against trespass is given by: (1) Actual communication to the actor; or (2) Posting in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders. 3. The offense of trespass in the first degree is a class B misdemeanor, unless the victim is intentionally targeted as a law enforcement officer, as defined in section 556.061, or the victim is targeted because he or she is a relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity to a law enforcement officer, in which case it is a class A misdemeanor. If the building or real property is part of a nuclear power plant, the offense of trespass in the first degree is a class E felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 69 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Neighbors (Missouri Court of Appeals 1980, 613 S.W.2d 143)“…iling to instruct the jury on trespass in the first degree (Section 569.140, RSMo 1978) and trespass in the second degree…”
- State v. Callen (Supreme Court of Missouri 2001, 45 S.W.3d 888)“…th the class D felony of trespass in the first degree under section 569.140, RSMo 1994, and the enhanced punishment provi…”
- State v. Nolan (Supreme Court of Missouri 1994, 872 S.W.2d 99)“…trespass is entering or remaining in a property unlawfully. § 569.140, RSMo 1986. Nolan was not charged with enteri…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 573
§ 573.110Nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images, offense of — definitions — elements — exemptions — immunity from liability, when — penalty — private cause of action, when.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
1. As used in this section and section 573.112, the following terms mean: (1) "Computer", a device that accepts, processes, stores, retrieves, or outputs data and includes, but is not limited to, auxiliary storage and telecommunications devices connected to computers; (2) "Computer program", a series of coded instructions or statements in a form acceptable to a computer that causes the computer to process data and supply the results of the data processing; (3) "Data", a representation in any form of information, knowledge, facts, concepts, or instructions including, but not limited to, program documentation, that is prepared or has been prepared in a formalized manner and is stored or processed in or transmitted by a computer or in a system or network. Data is considered property and may be in any form including, but not limited to, printouts, magnetic or optical storage media, punch cards, data stored internally in the memory of the computer, or data stored externally that is accessible by the computer; (4) "Image", a photograph, film, videotape, digital recording, or other depiction or portrayal of an object, including a human body; (5) "Intimate parts", the fully…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Anthony Madison (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2026)“…and nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.110, though the state grand jury later retu…”
- Gray (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2025)“…it knows how to say so in the statute itself. See, e.g., Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.110.7 (“In addition to the criminal penalti…”
- Soule v. Langley Recycling, Inc. (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2020)“…sexual images of her without her consent, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.110. Now before the Cou…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 573.112Threatening the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images, offense of — elements — penalty.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
1. A person commits the offense of threatening the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images if he or she gains or attempts to gain anything of value, or coerces or attempts to coerce another person to act or refrain from acting, by threatening to disseminate an image of another person, which was obtained under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know or understand that the image was to remain private, against the will of such person: (1) Who is at least eighteen years of age; (2) Who is identifiable from the image itself or information displayed in connection with the image; and (3) Who is engaged in a sexual act or whose intimate parts are exposed, in whole or in part. 2. The offense of threatening the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images is a class E felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
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): Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXIX (CONDUCT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS), Chapter 610 § 610.010 (Definitions.)
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
- Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 542.402 - Wiretapping(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 565.252 - Voyeurism(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 573.110 - Revenge Porn(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 573.112 - Threatening Dissemination(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Mo. Rev. Stat. Chapter 610 - Sunshine Law(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 565.090 - Harassment(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 569.140 - Trespass(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)