Rhode Island
Rhode Island Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Surveillance and Social Media (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 17, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 9, 2026. · 11 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Rhode Island employers can generally monitor work email, phone lines, and computer systems under the federal wiretap law's business-use exception. But state law draws firm lines elsewhere: employers cannot demand a personal social media password, and Rhode Island's vehicle-tracking statute is, on paper, the strictest in the country.
This article provides general legal information about Rhode Island employee monitoring law as of July 9, 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a Rhode Island-licensed attorney about your specific situation.
Scope: This article covers Rhode Island law on an employer's authority to monitor employees, access personal social media, and conduct video, GPS, and biometric monitoring. It does not re-derive Rhode Island's one-party consent recording rules (see our recording laws guide and its workplace recording guide) or GPS law outside the employment context (see our GPS tracking laws guide).
The Federal Baseline: the "Ordinary Course of Business" Exception
Rhode Island's starting point for any workplace monitoring question is federal, not state, law. Title I of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act makes it unlawful to intentionally intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications without consent under 18 U.S.C. section 2511 (part of Title I's broader 18 U.S.C. sections 2510-2523), but the statute carves out a broad exception for the owner of a communications system. Under the business-extension exemption in 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a), communications equipment being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business, a category courts extend to employers who own the phone, email, and computer systems their staff use, falls outside the Wiretap Act's definition of a covered interception device, so employers may generally intercept communications on that system in the ordinary course of business.
The leading case is Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983): once a monitored call is determined to be personal rather than business-related, the exception generally ends, and continued listening can create liability. Rhode Island has not enacted a statute that narrows or expands this federal baseline for employer-owned systems; state law fills the gap only in the areas below.
Does Rhode Island Require Notice Before Electronic Monitoring?
No, not yet. Only Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and Maine require employers to give written or posted notice before monitoring phone, email, or internet use on the job. Rhode Island has not enacted a comparable statute, so an employer here can generally rely on the federal ordinary-course exception without a state-mandated notice or acknowledgment step.
That could change. During the 2026 session, H 7767, "An Act Relating to Labor and Labor Relations, Artificial Intelligence Use and Fair Employment Practices," would have restricted employer collection of electronic monitoring and time-tracking data to specific, disclosed purposes, required prior notice, and barred retaliation against employees who raised concerns. The bill did not become law: the House Labor Committee held it for further study on April 15, 2026. Employees and employers should not assume this bill is in effect, and should watch for it, or something like it, to resurface in a future session.
Rhode Island's Social Media Privacy Law for Employees
Rhode Island's clearest, currently enacted employee-monitoring-adjacent statute is the Employee Social Media Privacy chapter, R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 28-56, enacted in 2014. Section 28-56-2 prohibits an employer from requiring, coercing, or requesting that an employee or applicant disclose a password or other means of accessing a personal social media account, at subsection (1), and from requiring, coercing, or requesting that the employee access a personal account in the employer's presence, at subsection (2). Subsection (3) bars compelling an employee or applicant to divulge personal social media account information, but it carries a significant carve-out that applies to every employer: disclosure may be required when the information is reasonably believed relevant to an investigation of allegations of employee misconduct or a workplace-related violation of applicable laws and regulations, provided the information is accessed and used solely to the extent necessary for that investigation or a related proceeding. Section 28-56-3 covers different ground. It bars an employer from compelling an employee or applicant to add anyone, including the employer or the employer's agent, to the contacts associated with a personal social media account, and from requiring, requesting, or causing changes to the settings that affect a third party's ability to view the account.
Section 28-56-4 bars retaliation: an employer cannot discharge, discipline, penalize, or threaten to do any of those things to an employee who refuses an unlawful request, and cannot decline to hire an applicant for the same reason. Section 28-56-5 exempts information that is already publicly available, and lets employers screen, monitor, or retain employee communications to the extent necessary to supervise communications of regulated financial institutions or insurance and securities licensees, where required by self-regulatory organization rules under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or by other state or federal law. That is a supervision allowance, not an investigation power. The chapter does not reach accounts an employer itself issues for company purposes.
Section 28-56-6 gives an employee or applicant a private civil right of action. A prevailing plaintiff can recover declaratory relief, damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and a court may enjoin an employer that commits or proposes a violation. Unlike some states' social-media-password laws, Rhode Island's statute does not cap damages at a fixed dollar amount, a comparatively strong remedy among the roughly two dozen states with similar laws.
Video and Audio Surveillance in Rhode Island Workplaces
Rhode Island does have a dedicated employee-privacy statute for the most sensitive spaces: R.I. Gen. Laws 28-6.12-1 flatly bars an employer from making an audio or video recording of an employee in a restroom, locker room, or changing room unless authorized by court order. The ban applies regardless of the employer's purpose, with no sexual-intent element, and a violation gives the employee a civil action for damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and injunctive relief. Outside those protected spaces, broader workplace video surveillance is governed by the statutes below. Rhode Island's video voyeurism statute, section 11-64-2, makes it a crime to knowingly photograph, film, or record another person without consent, for sexual arousal or gratification, in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, punishable by up to three years and a $5,000 fine. An employer that installs a camera in a restroom, locker room, or changing area for loss-prevention reasons violates section 28-6.12-1 regardless of a posted policy, and can also face a civil claim under the statutory right to privacy at section 9-1-28.1; criminal exposure under section 11-64-2 arises only where the recording is made for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.
Cameras in common work areas, sales floors, warehouses, and entrances are generally permissible without a state-specific notice requirement. Audio recording of employees is governed separately by Rhode Island's one-party consent rule under section 11-35-21; an employer that wants to record conversations involving employees, rather than merely reviewing already-stored business communications, needs the consent structure that statute requires. Our Rhode Island workplace recording guide covers that consent question in depth.
GPS and Vehicle Tracking of Rhode Island Employees
Rhode Island is an unusual case worth real treatment rather than a general link-out, because its vehicle-tracking law is the strictest in the country and cuts in a direction employers should understand carefully. R.I. Gen. Laws section 11-69-1 makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine, to knowingly install, conceal, place, or use an electronic tracking device in or on a motor vehicle without the consent of the vehicle's operator AND all of its occupants. Unlike most states' tracker statutes, which turn on the vehicle owner's consent, Rhode Island's law does not treat ownership alone as a defense.
That sounds like it could complicate ordinary company-vehicle GPS programs, but the statute includes an express business exception covering vehicles a company owns or leases for use by its employees or contractors. In practice, a Rhode Island employer can lawfully track a company-owned or leased vehicle used by its workforce without separately obtaining each driver's consent, and no separate law requires written notice on top of that exception. The exception does not reach an employee's personal vehicle; tracking a worker's own car without the operator's and all occupants' consent is the same misdemeanor anyone else would commit, so employers tracking personal vehicles used for work should still get written consent rather than rely on an implied exception. For the general legal framework, including the stalking statute at section 11-59-2 and United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), see our Rhode Island GPS tracking laws guide.
Biometric Monitoring: Time Clocks and the RIDTPPA
Employers increasingly use fingerprint or facial-recognition time clocks, and in trucking, driver-facing cameras that can capture biometric identifiers. Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14, the strongest law of this kind nationally, requires written consent before collection and creates a private right of action; it does not apply outside Illinois, and Rhode Island has no equivalent.
Rhode Island's new comprehensive privacy law, RIDTPPA, R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 6-48.1, took effect January 1, 2026, and classifies biometric data, fingerprints, voiceprints, retina or iris scans used to identify a specific individual, as sensitive data requiring opt-in consent before a covered business processes it. But the Act's definition of "customer" expressly excludes an individual acting in a commercial or employment context, section 6-48.1-2(10), so a fingerprint or face scan collected for a workplace time clock generally falls outside the opt-in requirement, the same structural gap several other states' privacy laws leave for employment data. Rhode Island employees relying on a biometric time clock are protected mainly by employer policy and common-law privacy claims, not a dedicated statute. See our Rhode Island biometric privacy guide for the consumer-facing rules.
What Rhode Island Employees Can Do About Monitoring Concerns
A demand for a social media password, or retaliation for refusing one, can support a civil claim under section 28-56-6, with damages and attorney's fees available. A camera in a restroom, locker room, or employer-designated changing room supports a civil action under section 28-6.12-1 for damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and injunctive relief, alongside a claim under the right to privacy at section 9-1-28.1; if the recording was made for sexual arousal or gratification, it also supports a criminal report under the voyeurism statute. A tracker on a personal vehicle without the required consent of every operator and occupant can support a criminal complaint under section 11-69-1 and, if it rises to harassment, a stalking complaint under section 11-59-2.
Because Rhode Island's monitoring rules span several distinct sources, an employee with a specific fact pattern should keep records and consult a Rhode Island-licensed employment attorney rather than assume a single statute covers the situation. Rhode Island is also an at-will employment state, so a lawful monitoring dispute does not by itself prevent termination for unrelated reasons. For the broader picture, see our Employee Monitoring Laws by State hub and our general US recording laws guide.
Disclaimer
This article provides general legal information about Rhode Island employee monitoring law as of July 9, 2026. It is not a substitute for individualized legal advice. Employment monitoring disputes often involve overlapping statutes, employer policy, and federal law, and outcomes depend on specific facts. Readers should consult an attorney licensed in Rhode Island for advice about a particular situation.
Related articles
- Employee Monitoring Laws by State
- Rhode Island Recording Laws
- Rhode Island Workplace Recording Laws
- Rhode Island GPS Tracking Laws
- Rhode Island Biometric Privacy Laws
- Rhode Island At-Will Employment Laws
- US Recording Laws by State
Last updated: July 9, 2026. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of that date.
More Rhode Island Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can my employer read my work email in Rhode Island?
Generally yes, once the email is on an employer-owned system. Rhode Island has no state electronic-monitoring notice statute in force, so employers typically rely on the business-extension exemption for employer-provided communications equipment in 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a).
Does Rhode Island require employers to give notice before monitoring employees?
Not currently. A 2026 bill, H 7767, would have added a prior-notice requirement for electronic monitoring, but the House Labor Committee held it for further study in April 2026, so no state notice statute is in effect.
Can my employer ask for my Instagram or Facebook password in Rhode Island?
No, not for personal accounts. R.I. Gen. Laws section 28-56-2 prohibits requiring, coercing, or requesting a personal social media password, and bars making you open the account in your employer's presence. Section 28-56-2(3) does allow an employer to require disclosure of personal social media account information it reasonably believes relevant to an investigation of alleged employee misconduct or a workplace-related violation of law, used only as far as that investigation requires, and section 28-56-5 exempts information that is already public and financial-sector supervision of communications.
Can my employer GPS track a company vehicle I drive in Rhode Island?
Generally yes. Section 11-69-1 has an express business exception for vehicles a company owns or leases for employees or contractors, even though the statute's general rule for private trackers is unusually strict.
Can my employer track my personal car in Rhode Island?
Only with consent. The business exception in section 11-69-1 covers company-owned or leased vehicles, not a personal car. Tracking a personal vehicle without consent of the operator and all occupants can be a misdemeanor.
Can my employer put a camera in a Rhode Island workplace restroom or locker room?
No. Section 28-6.12-1 bars an employer from making an audio or video recording of an employee in a restroom, locker room, or designated changing room unless a court authorizes it. That ban has no intent element, so it applies to a loss-prevention camera, and it gives the employee a civil action for damages, attorney's fees and costs, and injunctive relief. A recording made for sexual arousal or gratification is separately a crime under the video voyeurism statute, section 11-64-2.
Can my Rhode Island employer require a fingerprint scan for the time clock?
There is no Illinois-style biometric consent statute in Rhode Island. RIDTPPA requires opt-in consent for biometric data but excludes data processed in an employment context, so employees generally rely on employer policy.
What can I do if my Rhode Island employer violates the social media password law?
An employee or applicant can bring a civil action under section 28-56-6 and recover declaratory relief, damages, and attorney's fees and costs; a court can also enjoin the employer.
Updates
Corrected the description of Rhode Island section 28-56-3, added the section 28-56-2(3) misconduct-investigation exception to the social media password rules, and cited section 28-6.12-1 as the statute that bars restroom and locker-room cameras regardless of the employer purpose.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the source of the employer 'ordinary course of business' monitoring doctrine from 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(i) (a service-provider exception) to 18 U.S.C. 2510(5)(a) (the business-extension exemption courts actually apply to 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.
Rhode Island General Laws, Title 28: Labor and Labor Relations, Chapter 28-6.12: Privacy in Private Spaces
§ 28-6.12-1Employee privacy protectionIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) No employer may cause an audio or video recording to be made of an employee in a restroom, locker room, or room designated by an employer for employees to change their clothes, unless authorized by court order. (b) No recording made in violation of this section may be used by an employer for any purpose. (c) In any civil action alleging a violation of this chapter, the court may: (1) Award damages and reasonable attorney’s fees and cost to a prevailing plaintiff; and (2) Afford injunctive relief against any employer that commits or proposes to commit a violation of this chapter. (d) The rights and remedies provided herein shall be in addition to, and not supersede, any other rights and remedies provided by statute or common law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at webserver.rilegislature.gov
Also relied on in: Rhode Island Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
Rhode Island General Laws, Title 11: Criminal Offenses, Chapter 11-35: Public Utilities
§ 11-35-21Unauthorized interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic, or oral communicationIn forcecited in 17 of our articles
(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in chapter 5.1 of title 12, any person: (1) who willfully intercepts, attempts to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire, electronic, or oral communication; (2) who willfully discloses or attempts to disclose to any person the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing, or having reason to know that the information was obtained through interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication in violation of this section; or (3) who willfully uses or attempts to use the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing, or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication in violation of this section; shall be imprisoned for not more than five (5) years. (b) The provisions of subdivisions (a)(2) and (3) of this section shall not apply to the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, or evidence derived from those contents, which has become common knowledge or public information.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at webserver.rilegislature.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walden v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RI (2010) held municipalities are not persons who may be sued under sections 11-35-21 and 12-5.1-13. The earlier Walden v. City of Providence (2007) held this section is criminal but that R.I. Gen. Laws 9-1-2 supplies a civil right of action for its violation.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514)“…Stat. § 165.540 (1997); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5703 (2000); R. I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 (2000); Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-601 (…”
- Walden v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE, RI (Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 2010, 596 F.3d 38)“…te, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.; Rhode Island's wiretap laws, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 11-35-21, 12-5.1-13; and the state'…”
- Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A. (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1999, 191 F.3d 463)“…43 (1998); 18 Pa Cons Stat. Ann. §§ 5703, 5725 (West 1999); R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 (1998); Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 39-13-601 to…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Rhode Island Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Rhode Island Dashcam Laws: Mounting, Audio, and Evidence Rules (2026), Rhode Island Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and HIPAA Rules (2026)
Rhode Island General Laws, Title 11: Criminal Offenses, Chapter 11-64: Electronic Imaging Devices
§ 11-64-2Video voyeurismIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
(1) A person is guilty of video voyeurism when, for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification or stimulation, such person: (a) Uses, installs or permits the use or installation of an imaging device to capture, record, store or transmit visual images of the intimate areas of another person without that other person’s knowledge and consent, and under circumstances in which that other person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (b) Intentionally, and with knowledge that the image was obtained in violation of subsection (a), disseminates, publishes, or sells such image of the captured representation of another person or persons depicted in the representation or reproduction, and who did not consent to the dissemination, publication or sale. (2) A person is also guilty of video voyeurism when that person, for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification or stimulation, looks into an occupied dwelling or other building by use of an imaging device that provides images of the interior of a dwelling.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at webserver.rilegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2014
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Thoms (U S Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals 2014)“…2C:14-9 (West 2013); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7507.1 (2012); R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-64-2 (2004); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-17-470 (201…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Rhode Island Video Recording Laws: Surveillance, Filming, and Privacy Rules (2026), Rhode Island Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, Rhode Island Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules (2026)
Rhode Island General Laws, Title 11: Criminal Offenses, Chapter 11-69: Electronic Tracking of Motor Vehicles
§ 11-69-1Electronic tracking of motor vehiclesIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a)(1) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, it is an offense for a person to knowingly install, conceal, or otherwise place or use an electronic tracking device in or on a motor vehicle without the consent of the operator and all occupants of the vehicle for the purpose of monitoring or following the operator, occupant, or occupants of the vehicle. (2) Definitions. As used in this section: (i) The term “dealer” has the same meaning as set forth in § 31-5-5 and includes, for purposes of this section, an assignee of the dealer; (ii) The term “person” does not include the manufacturer of the motor vehicle, provider of telematics equipment and services, or entities that rent motor vehicles; and (iii) The term “starter interrupt technology” means technology used to remotely disable the starter of a motor vehicle. (b)(1) It shall not be a violation if the installation, concealment, placement, or use of an electronic tracking device in or on a motor vehicle is by, or at the direction of, a law enforcement officer in furtherance of a criminal investigation and is carried out in accordance with the applicable state and federal law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-26 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at webserver.rilegislature.gov
Also relied on in: Rhode Island GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
Rhode Island General Laws, Title 28: Labor and Labor Relations, Chapter 28-56: Employee Social Media Privacy
§ 28-56-6Penalties for violationsIn force
In any civil action alleging a violation of this chapter, the court may: (1) Award to a prevailing applicant or employee declaratory relief, damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and (2) Award injunctive relief against any employer or agent of any employer that or who commits or proposes to commit a violation of this chapter.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at webserver.rilegislature.gov
Rhode Island General Laws, Title 6: Commercial Law
§ 6-48.1-2Definitions. [Effective January 1, 2026.]In forcecited in 5 of our articles
As used in this chapter: (1) “Affiliate” means any entity that shares common branding with another legal entity directly or indirectly, controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another legal entity. For this purpose, “control” or “controlled” means ownership of, or the power to vote, more than fifty percent (50%) of the outstanding shares of any class of voting security of a company; control in any manner over the election of a majority of the directors or of individuals exercising similar functions; or the power to exercise controlling influence over the management of a company. (2) “Authenticate” means to use reasonable means to determine that a request to exercise any of the rights afforded under this chapter is being made by, or on behalf of, the customer who is entitled to exercise such customer rights with respect to the personal data at issue. (3) “Biometric data” means data generated by automatic measurements of an individual’s biological characteristics, such as a fingerprint, a voiceprint, eye retinas, irises, or other unique biological patterns or characteristics that are used to identify a specific individual.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at webserver.rilegislature.gov
Rhode Island General Laws, Title 9: Courts and Civil Procedure
§ 9-1-28.1Right to privacy — Action for deprivation of rightIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
(a) Right to privacy created. It is the policy of this state that every person in this state shall have a right to privacy which shall be defined to include any of the following rights individually: (1) The right to be secure from unreasonable intrusion upon one’s physical solitude or seclusion; (i) In order to recover for violation of this right, it must be established that: (A) It was an invasion of something that is entitled to be private or would be expected to be private; (B) The invasion was or is offensive or objectionable to a reasonable man; although, (ii) The person who discloses the information need not benefit from the disclosure. (2) The right to be secure from an appropriation of one’s name or likeness; (i) In order to recover for violation of this right, it must be established that: (A) The act was done without permission of the claimant; (B) The act is of a benefit to someone other than the claimant; (ii) It need not be established that there was any publication.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at webserver.rilegislature.gov
Cited in 27 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- In Re Derderian (Superior Court of Rhode Island 2006)“…t of privacy extended to the potential jurors in this case. R.I. Gen. Laws 1956 § 9-1-28.1 (a)(3) states that "every person in thi…”
- Russell Henry v. Media General Operations, Inc. (Supreme Court of Rhode Island 2021)“…46 - viz., Count Three, which alleged “[v]iolation of R.I. Gen. Laws §9-1-28.1(a)(4)” by virtue of defendants “caus[i…”
- Liu v. Striuli (District Court, D. Rhode Island 1999, 36 F. Supp. 2d 452)“…action against Striuli under the Rhode Island Privacy Act, R.I.Gen.Laws § 9-1-28.1. Count V alleges a cause of action agai…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 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), US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video
§ 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, Hawaii Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent State Rules
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Rhode Island General Laws, Title 28: Labor and Labor Relations, Chapter 28-56: Employee Social Media Privacy § 28-56-1 (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
- R.I. Gen. Laws section 11-35-21, Unauthorized interception, disclosure, or use of wire, electronic, or oral communication(webserver.rilegislature.gov).gov
- R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 28-56, Employee Social Media Privacy (sections 28-56-1 to 28-56-6)(webserver.rilegislature.gov).gov
- R.I. Gen. Laws section 28-56-6, Penalties for violations (civil action, damages, attorney's fees, injunctive relief)(webserver.rilegislature.gov).gov
- R.I. Gen. Laws section 11-69-1, Electronic tracking of motor vehicles(webserver.rilegislature.gov).gov
- R.I. Gen. Laws section 11-64-2, Video voyeurism(webserver.rilegislature.gov).gov
- R.I. Gen. Laws section 9-1-28.1, Right to privacy(webserver.rilegislature.gov).gov
- R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 6-48.1, Data Transparency and Privacy Protection Act (RIDTPPA), including the section 6-48.1-2 definitions of "customer" and "biometric data"(webserver.rilegislature.gov).gov
- 2026 Rhode Island H 7767, An Act Relating to Labor and Labor Relations, Artificial Intelligence Use and Fair Employment Practices (held for further study by House Labor Committee, April 15, 2026)(webserver.rilegislature.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a), business-extension exemption excluding employer-provided communications equipment used in the ordinary course of business from the Wiretap Act's device definition(law.cornell.edu).gov
- Watkins v. L.M. Berry & Co., 704 F.2d 577 (11th Cir. 1983)(law.resource.org)
- 18 U.S.C. section 2511, Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited(uscode.house.gov).gov
- R.I. Gen. Laws 28-6.12-1 - Employee Privacy Protection (workplace recording ban in private spaces)(webserver.rilegislature.gov).gov
- R.I. Gen. Laws section 28-56-3, Social media access requests prohibited (adding contacts; altering privacy settings)(webserver.rilegislature.gov)
- R.I. Gen. Laws section 28-56-5, Exceptions (publicly available information; supervision of communications of regulated financial institutions and insurance or securities licensees)(webserver.rilegislature.gov)