Iowa
Iowa Employee Monitoring Laws (2026): Workplace Surveillance Rights
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 17, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Iowa has no statute requiring employers to notify employees before electronic monitoring, and no social-media-password law. Workplace surveillance runs on the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act's business-use exception, Iowa's one-party consent recording law, and the invasion-of-privacy tort applied in Koeppel v. Speirs (2011).
Information last verified on July 9, 2026. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Iowa state law on an employer's ability to monitor employees: electronic-monitoring notice, social media password protection, GPS and vehicle tracking, and workplace video and audio surveillance. It does not re-derive Iowa's general one-party consent recording rule (see Iowa Recording Laws) or Iowa's general GPS tracking statute (see Iowa GPS Tracking Laws) in depth. Information current as of July 2026.
Can an Employer Monitor Employees in Iowa?
Yes. Federal law sets the floor for workplace monitoring, and Iowa has not adopted additional employment-specific restrictions on top of it. Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 2510 to 2523, makes it unlawful to intentionally intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication without consent (18 U.S.C. § 2511), but the business-extension exemption at 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a) excludes employer-provided phone and computer systems used in the ordinary course of business from the Act's definition of an interception device, letting an employer that provides the phone or computer system monitor communications on that system for legitimate business reasons. The Eleventh Circuit's decision in Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983), narrowed that exception in practice: once a monitored call is identified as personal, continued listening can fall outside the exception, and an employer is generally expected to stop listening or limit itself to spot checks. An employer can also rely on consent, either because Iowa is a one-party consent state under Iowa Code section 808B.2(2)(c), see Iowa Recording Laws for the full framework, or through an acknowledged monitoring policy signed at hiring.
Does Iowa Require Notice Before Electronic Monitoring?
No. Iowa has not enacted an electronic-monitoring notice statute. Four states, Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. section 31-48d), Delaware (19 Del. Code section 705), New York (N.Y. Civil Rights Law section 52-c), and Maine (26 M.R.S. section 620-A), require employers to give employees written notice before monitoring computer, phone, or internet use on employer-owned systems. Iowa employers face no comparable statutory duty, and no bill creating one has moved through the Iowa legislature as of mid-2026.
That does not mean Iowa employees have no protection. The federal "ordinary course of business" exception described above only shields monitoring genuinely tied to business communications. An Iowa employer that intercepts a call or email already known to be purely personal risks liability under Iowa Code section 727.8 (eavesdropping, a serious misdemeanor) or Iowa Code section 808B.2 (unlawful interception, a Class D felony) on top of federal exposure. Most Iowa employers address the notice gap voluntarily, through a monitoring policy in the employee handbook, because a signed acknowledgment strengthens the consent-based defense even where no statute compels it.
Social Media Password Protections for Iowa Employees
Iowa employees have no state-law protection against an employer demanding a personal social media username or password. Twenty-seven states, including neighboring Illinois, Nebraska, and Wisconsin, bar employers from requiring an employee or applicant to disclose social media login credentials, log in in front of a supervisor, or add a manager as a "friend" or connection, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures' 50-state tracker. Iowa has not enacted a version of that law.

An Iowa employer that conditions employment on handing over a personal password is not violating a dedicated state social-media statute. An affected employee may still have claims under other theories depending on the facts, such as discrimination law if the demand correlates with a protected characteristic, but Iowa law does not give social media credentials the specific protection it gives in states with a social-media-password statute.
GPS and Vehicle Tracking Rules for Iowa Employers
Iowa Code section 708.11A makes it a serious misdemeanor, up to one year in jail and a fine of $430 to $2,560, to place a global positioning device on another person or on an object in order to track that person's movements, without that person's consent and without a legitimate purpose. Read those elements carefully, because they are commonly misdescribed. The consent the statute asks about is the consent of the person being tracked, not the consent of whoever owns the vehicle, and the statute reaches "an object," not just a vehicle. Owning the company car is therefore not by itself a defense.
What keeps ordinary fleet tracking outside the statute is the "legitimate purpose" element. Dispatching service calls, routing and scheduling, verifying mileage or hours, and protecting employer property are legitimate business purposes, so an employer that tracks a company vehicle for reasons like those has not committed the offense. Employee consent, through an acknowledged vehicle-tracking policy, is the other way out and the sturdier one, because it removes any argument about whether a particular purpose was legitimate. Tracking that serves no business purpose, such as following an employee's personal movements after hours, is where an employer's exposure actually begins. Iowa has not enacted a New Jersey-style statute requiring written notice before an employer tracks a company vehicle. See Iowa GPS Tracking Laws for the full tracking-device statute and its penalties.
The stakes change sharply once tracking becomes part of a pattern meant to frighten someone. Iowa Code section 708.11 makes stalking with a technological device, GPS included, a class C felony carrying up to ten years in prison, even on a first offense. That provision targets abusive, fear-inducing tracking rather than ordinary fleet management, but it shows how far Iowa law reaches once tracking crosses from a business tool into harassment.
Video and Audio Surveillance in Iowa Workplaces
Iowa law draws a sharp line between surveillance of open work areas and surveillance of places where an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Cameras covering a sales floor, warehouse, or common work area generally raise no independent Iowa statutory claim. Cameras in a bathroom, locker room, or similar space can.
The Iowa Supreme Court's decision in Koeppel v. Speirs, 808 N.W.2d 177 (Iowa 2011), arose after an insurance agency owner hid a camera inside a bathroom shelf to investigate a coworker he suspected of misconduct. Two employees who used that bathroom discovered the camera and sued for invasion of privacy. The court held that the mere placement of an operational camera in a place like a bathroom can support a claim for intrusion on solitude or seclusion, even without proof the camera actually captured or transmitted an image, because the capability to invade privacy is itself part of the injury.
Iowa Code section 709.21 layers a separate criminal charge on top of that civil tort: knowingly viewing, photographing, or filming a nude or partially nude person without consent, for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, is an aggravated misdemeanor that triggers mandatory sex-offender registration. Audio recording of workplace conversations is governed by Iowa's one-party consent rule rather than an employment-specific statute; see Iowa Recording Laws for that framework.
Biometric Monitoring and Employee Timeclocks
Iowa has not enacted a biometric-privacy statute comparable to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14, which requires written consent before an employer collects a fingerprint, hand geometry, or facial scan and creates a private right of action with statutory damages. Illinois employers have paid tens of millions of dollars in BIPA settlements over fingerprint timeclocks and driver-facing cameras that scanned biometric data without consent. An Iowa employer that adopts a fingerprint or facial-recognition timeclock is not subject to an equivalent state law. An Iowa employee's recourse, if any, runs through general tort theories like intrusion on seclusion rather than a dedicated biometric statute.

What Iowa Employees Can Do About Workplace Monitoring
An Iowa employee with monitoring concerns has no single dedicated regulator to call, but has practical options. Start with the employee handbook: a written monitoring policy defines what the employer told employees to expect and can narrow or widen the "ordinary course of business" defense. A hidden camera in a bathroom or locker room can be reported to local police under Iowa Code section 709.21, and may also support a civil claim under the invasion-of-privacy tort recognized in Koeppel v. Speirs. A call or email intercepted after it was clearly personal, inconsistent with Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., may support a claim under Iowa Code section 808B.8, which allows recovery of the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or $1,000, plus attorney fees. None of this substitutes for advice from an Iowa-licensed attorney.
See the Employee Monitoring Laws by State hub for how Iowa's approach compares to states like Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey that have adopted dedicated notice and tracking statutes.
Disclaimer
This article provides general legal information about Iowa law governing employer monitoring of employees. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. It reflects Iowa statutes and case law as verified on July 9, 2026. Readers facing a specific workplace monitoring issue should consult an attorney licensed in Iowa.

Related articles
- Employee Monitoring Laws by State
- Iowa Recording Laws
- Iowa GPS Tracking Laws
- US Recording Laws by State
Last updated: July 9, 2026. Statutes and cases cited reflect their status as of that date.
More Iowa Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Iowa law require my employer to tell me if I'm being monitored?
No. Iowa has not passed an electronic-monitoring notice statute like the ones in Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and Maine. Federal law and Iowa's one-party consent recording rule apply instead.
Can my employer read my work email in Iowa?
Generally yes, if the employer owns the email system and the review relates to business use, under the federal business-extension exemption at 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a), which excludes employer-provided communications equipment used in the ordinary course of business from the Wiretap Act's definition of an interception device. A written, acknowledged company policy strengthens the employer's position.
Can my employer ask for my personal Facebook or Instagram password in Iowa?
Iowa has no statute barring that request, unlike 27 other states. An employer can ask, though no Iowa law requires an employee to comply, and other legal theories, such as discrimination law, may apply depending on the circumstances.
Can my employer put a GPS tracker on my company car without telling me in Iowa?
Iowa Code section 708.11A imposes no notice requirement. It makes placing a tracking device an offense only when the device is placed without the tracked person's consent and without a legitimate purpose, and ordinary fleet management is a legitimate purpose, so tracking a company vehicle for business reasons is generally lawful. Owning the vehicle is not itself the exception. Iowa has not adopted a New Jersey-style law requiring written notice for company-vehicle tracking.
Is it legal for my employer to put a camera in the employee bathroom or locker room in Iowa?
No. The Iowa Supreme Court held in Koeppel v. Speirs, 808 N.W.2d 177 (Iowa 2011), that placing an operational camera in a bathroom can support an invasion-of-privacy claim, and Iowa Code section 709.21 makes secretly viewing or filming a nude or partially nude person for sexual gratification an aggravated misdemeanor.
Can my employer record my phone calls without telling me in Iowa?
An employer that is a party to the call, or that has one party's consent, can generally record it under Iowa's one-party consent rule. See Iowa's recording law page for the full framework governing who can record what.
Does Iowa limit fingerprint or facial-recognition timeclocks?
No. Iowa has not enacted a biometric-privacy statute comparable to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act, so an Iowa employer can generally adopt biometric timeclocks without the consent and disclosure duties Illinois law imposes.
What can I do if I think my employer is monitoring me illegally in Iowa?
Start by reviewing any written monitoring policy, then consider whether the conduct fits a specific Iowa statute, such as section 709.21 for hidden cameras in private spaces or section 808B.8 for unlawful interception. An Iowa-licensed employment attorney can evaluate a specific situation.
Updates
Corrected the GPS tracking section to state the actual elements of Iowa Code section 708.11A: the consent that matters is the tracked employee's, not the vehicle owner's, and an employer's protection comes from having a legitimate business purpose rather than from owning the vehicle.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Re-anchored the employer ordinary-course monitoring doctrine to the correct statute, 18 U.S.C. 2510(5)(a)'s business-extension exemption, rather than the service-provider exception at 2511(2)(a)(i).
Added the source citation for 18 U.S.C. 2510(5)(a), the business-extension exemption the article now correctly cites for employer monitoring.
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.
Iowa Code, Chapter 709: SEXUAL ABUSE
§ 709.21Invasion of privacy — nudity.In forcecited in 12 of our articles
1. A person who knowingly views, photographs, or films another person, for the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of any person, commits invasion of privacy if all of the following apply: a. The other person does not consent or is unable to consent to being viewed, photographed, or filmed. b. The other person is in a state of full or partial nudity. c. The other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy while in a state of full or partial nudity. 2. As used in this section: a. “Full or partial nudity” means the showing of any part of the human genitals or pubic area or buttocks, or any part of the nipple of the breast of a female, with less than fully opaque covering. b. “Photographs or films” means the making of any photograph, motion picture film, videotape, or any other recording or transmission of the image of a person. 3. A person who violates this section commits an aggravated misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 19 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Iowa courts apply section 709.21 element by element. State of Iowa v. Nathaniel Wade Marchant affirmed a conviction on circumstantial proof of hidden bedroom cameras; State of Iowa v. Paul Andrew Monahan reversed, finding no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy at open public restroom urinals.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State of Iowa v. Paul Andrew Monahan (Court of Appeals of Iowa 2018, 919 N.W.2d 635)✓A man was convicted under section 709.21 for allegedly looking at teenage boys at urinals in a public restroom at a track meet; the court reversed, finding no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy at those open urinals and insufficient evidence of a sexual purpose.
- Iowa Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary Board v. Templeton (Supreme Court of Iowa 2010, 784 N.W.2d 761)✓A lawyer repeatedly peered into women's bedroom and bathroom windows and pleaded guilty to six counts of invasion of privacy under section 709.21; the court did not interpret the statute but held those convictions reflected adversely on his fitness to practice law.
- State of Iowa v. Nathaniel Wade Marchant (Court of Appeals of Iowa 2026)✓The mother's live-in partner hid a camera in her 13-year-old daughter's bedroom, and over 1,000 nude images were found on his phones; the court held the circumstantial evidence sufficed to sustain his invasion-of-privacy conviction under section 709.21(1).
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance and Privacy Rights (2026), Iowa Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules (2026), Iowa Video Recording Laws: Where You Can and Cannot Film (2026)
Iowa Code, Chapter 808B: INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS
§ 808B.2Unlawful acts — penalty.In forcecited in 18 of our articles
1. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, a person who does any of the following commits a class “D” felony: a. Willfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, a wire, oral, or electronic communication. b. Willfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use an electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when either of the following applies: (1) The device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication. (2) The device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of radio communications. c. Willfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of a wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection. d.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2017
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Iowa courts have applied 808B.2 to covert recordings by private parties. State v. Spencer (2007) read its one-party consent exception to include vicarious consent, but only where a parent has a good faith, objectively reasonable basis for consenting for a minor child. Papillon v. Jones (2017) applied it to a hidden home recorder.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Supreme Court of Iowa 2017, 892 N.W.2d 763)✓A man left a hidden voice-activated recorder in his ex-girlfriend's home and captured her private phone calls, then used them in their custody case; the court affirmed liability under Section 808B.2 but held punitive damages require proof he knew he was violating the chapter.
- Amended June 6, 2017 Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Supreme Court of Iowa 2017)“…n in district court against Jones, alleging a violation of Iowa Code section 808B.2, which prohibits “willfully intercept[…”
- Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. State, University of Iowa (Supreme Court of Iowa 2009, 763 N.W.2d 250)✓A nonmember hid a recorder in a fraternity's private meeting room and gave the tape to university officials who used it to discipline the chapter; the court held the tape was a protected oral communication and read "willfully" in Section 808B.2 to mean purposeful conduct.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Iowa Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Iowa Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026)
§ 808B.8Civil damages authorized — civil and criminal immunity — injunctive relief.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
1. A person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter shall: a. Have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use such communications. b. Be entitled to recover from any such person all of the following: (1) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation, or one thousand dollars, whichever is higher. (2) Punitive damages upon a finding of a willful, malicious, or reckless violation of this chapter. (3) A reasonable attorney fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. 2. A good faith reliance on a court order shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter. 3. A person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter may seek an injunction, either temporary or permanent, against any person who violates this chapter.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. State, University of Iowa (Supreme Court of Iowa 2009, 763 N.W.2d 250)“…of an intercepted electronic communication in violation of Iowa Code section 808B.8 (2001). Because the fraternity is the r…”
- Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Supreme Court of Iowa 2017, 892 N.W.2d 763)“…ict court awarded Papillon attorney fees of $16,008. See Iowa Code § 808B.8(1)(b)(3) (allowing award of attorney f…”
- Amended June 6, 2017 Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Supreme Court of Iowa 2017)“…ict court awarded Papillon attorney fees of $16,008. See Iowa Code § 808B.8(1)(b)(3) (allowing award of attorney f…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Iowa Code, Chapter 708: ASSAULT
§ 708.11AUnauthorized placement of global positioning device.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
1. A person commits unauthorized placement of a global positioning device when the person, without the consent of the other person, places a global positioning device on the other person or an object in order to track the movements of the other person without a legitimate purpose. 2. A person who commits a violation of this section commits a serious misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-26 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State of Iowa v. Joseph Thomas Gentile (Court of Appeals of Iowa 2024)“…positioning device, a serious misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.11A (2023). A related no-contact order barr…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
§ 708.11Stalking.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
1. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires: a. “Accompanying offense” means any public offense committed as part of the course of conduct engaged in while committing the offense of stalking. b. “Course of conduct” means repeatedly maintaining a visual or physical proximity to a person without legitimate purpose, repeatedly utilizing a technological device to locate, listen to, or watch a person without authorization or legitimate purpose, or repeatedly conveying oral or written threats, threats implied by conduct, or a combination thereof, directed at or toward a person. c. “Immediate family member” means a spouse, parent, child, sibling, or any other person who regularly resides in the household of a specific person, or who within the prior six months regularly resided in the household of a specific person. d. “Repeatedly” means on two or more occasions. e. “Technological device” means any computer, cellular phone, smartphone, digital camera, video camera, audio recording device, global positioning device, or other electronic device that can be used for creating, storing, or transmitting information in the form of electronic data. 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 47 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Evans (Supreme Court of Iowa 2003, 671 N.W.2d 720)“…f first-degree harassment (Counts II-IV). See Iowa Code §§ 708.11 , 708.7 (2001). Whereas the stalking ch…”
- State of Iowa v. Christopher Raymond Lindell (Supreme Court of Iowa 2013, 828 N.W.2d 1)“…ly injury to, or the death of, the specific person.” See Iowa Code § 708.11 (2009). On December 15, 2010, Lindell…”
- State v. Neuzil (Supreme Court of Iowa 1999, 589 N.W.2d 708)“…lking in violation of a protective order. See Iowa Code § 708.11 (3)(b)(l) (1997). Because we conclude t…”
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
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 126 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Surveillance Camera Laws by State (2026 Guide), Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Iowa Code section 708.11A, Placement of electronic or mechanical tracking device(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Iowa Code section 708.11, Stalking(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Iowa Code section 709.21, Invasion of privacy, nudity(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Iowa Code section 808B.2, Interception, disclosure, or use of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Iowa Code section 808B.8, Civil action for unlawful interception(legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Koeppel v. Speirs, 808 N.W.2d 177 (Iowa 2011), Iowa Supreme Court opinions archive(iowacourts.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. section 2511, Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited(uscode.house.gov).gov
- Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983)(openjurist.org)
- National Conference of State Legislatures, Privacy of Employee and Student Social Media Accounts(ncsl.org)
- 18 U.S.C. 2510(5)(a) - Wiretap Act definitions; business-extension exemption for employer-provided communications equipment(law.cornell.edu)
- Iowa Code chapter 708 (2026), section 708.11A, Unauthorized placement of global positioning device, official text(legis.iowa.gov)
- Iowa Code chapter 903 (2026), section 903.1(1)(b), maximum fine and confinement for a serious misdemeanor(legis.iowa.gov)