Texas
Texas Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Surveillance, Tracking, and Biometrics (2026)
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. · 11 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Texas employers can generally monitor company email, phone lines, and computer systems under the federal wiretap law's business-use exception, and Texas leaves that baseline largely undisturbed: no state electronic-monitoring notice statute and no social media password law. Where Texas regulates more precisely than most states is a cluster of criminal and civil statutes aimed at tracking devices, invasive recording, and, notably, its own biometric privacy law with real enforcement teeth.
This article provides general legal information about Texas employee monitoring law as of July 9, 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a Texas-licensed attorney about your specific situation.
Scope: This article covers Texas law on an employer's authority to monitor employees, access personal social media, and conduct workplace video, GPS, and biometric monitoring. It does not re-derive Texas's general one-party consent recording rules (see our Texas recording laws guide) or GPS law generally outside the employment context (see our Texas GPS tracking laws guide).
The Federal Baseline: the "Ordinary Course of Business" Exception
Texas'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 (18 U.S.C. § 2511, part of the Title I scheme at sections 2510-2523), but the business-extension exemption in 18 U.S.C. section 2510(5)(a) excludes communications equipment used in the ordinary course of business, a category extended to employers who own the phone, email, and computer systems their staff use, from the Act's definition of a covered interception device, so employers are generally not liable for intercepting communications on that system in the ordinary course of business.
The leading case applying this exception 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 employer's ordinary-course exception generally ends. Texas has not enacted a state monitoring statute that narrows or expands this federal baseline; state law fills the gap only in the areas covered below.
Does Texas Require Notice Before Electronic Monitoring?
No. A small group of states, Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and (in effect since mid-2026) Maine, require employers to give employees written or posted notice before monitoring phone, email, or internet use on the job. Texas has not enacted a comparable statute, and two specific claims circulating online deserve correction. First, there is no "Texas Government Code Chapter 542A" governing employee monitoring; Chapter 542A of the Texas Insurance Code exists, but it addresses litigation over property-damage insurance claims and has nothing to do with workplace surveillance. Second, there is no statute formally named the "Texas Privacy Protection Act." That phrase appears to be a garbled reference to the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act, a consumer privacy law effective July 1, 2024, which expressly excludes data processed in a commercial or employment context, so it does not create an employee-monitoring notice duty either.
That leaves Texas employers relying on the federal ordinary-course exception for email, internet, and phone monitoring, with no state-mandated notice step. Many still post signage or a written policy as a practical, evidentiary matter, since courts weighing an employee's reasonable expectation of privacy look at whether a policy existed, but that is a risk-management choice, not a legal requirement.
Does Texas Restrict Employer Access to Employee Social Media?
No. Texas is not among the 27 states that bar employers from requesting an employee's or applicant's social media username or password. A 2013 bill, House Bill 318, would have prohibited this, but it did not pass, and no successor has become law since. A Texas employer can lawfully make a password request a condition of employment. That does not mean accessing the account carries no risk: an employer that logs into an employee's personal account without authorization, rather than merely asking for credentials, can face separate exposure under the federal Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. section 2701, which criminalizes unauthorized access to stored electronic communications.

Video and Audio Surveillance in Texas Workplaces
Texas's key video-surveillance statute has a notable recent history. Tex. Penal Code section 21.15 originally criminalized "improper photography or visual recording," but in Ex parte Thompson, 442 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014), the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals struck down part of it as unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment. The legislature responded in 2015 by narrowing the law to an enumerated list of private places, such as a bathroom, bedroom, or changing room, and retitling the offense "Invasive Visual Recording." Effective September 1, 2025, House Bill 1465 of the 89th Legislature broadened the offense again to reach any place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, not just the previously listed locations, and added sex-offender registration, a default 10-year registration duty under Texas's tiered scheme, for offenses committed on or after that date. It is a state jail felony, punishable by 180 days to two years and a fine of up to $10,000. An employer camera in a restroom, locker room, or similar space, even one installed for loss-prevention reasons, risks prosecution regardless of a posted monitoring policy.
Audio recording is governed separately. Texas is a one-party consent state under Tex. Penal Code section 16.02: a person who is a party to a communication, or who has a party's consent, may record it. Intercepting one without being a party or consent is a second-degree felony carrying two to twenty years. Texas also gives the intercepted party an unusually strong civil remedy: under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code chapter 123, that person can sue for an injunction, statutory damages of $10,000 for each occurrence, all actual damages in excess of $10,000, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. The $10,000 is a floor rather than an add-on: actual damages are recoverable only to the extent they exceed that amount. Our Texas workplace recording guide covers that consent question, including an employee's own right to record at work, in depth.
GPS and Vehicle Tracking of Texas Employees
Texas has not enacted a dedicated employer vehicle-tracking notice statute comparable to New Jersey's N.J. Stat. section 34:6B-22. The relevant general-purpose law is Tex. Penal Code section 16.06, Unlawful Installation of Tracking Device, a Class A misdemeanor for knowingly installing an electronic or mechanical tracking device on a motor vehicle owned or leased by another person. The scope is worth reading precisely: the offense is defined around installing a device on a vehicle owned by someone other than the installer. A Texas employer installing GPS tracking on a vehicle titled in the company's own name is not tracking a vehicle "owned by another person," so it falls outside section 16.06 entirely, without needing any exception.
The analysis changes for a vehicle the employer does not own, such as an employee's personal car used for work. There, section 16.06 provides an affirmative defense where the installer obtained the owner's or lessee's effective consent before installing the device, plus separate exceptions for peace officers and licensed private investigators with written consent. For the general framework, see our Texas GPS tracking laws guide.
Biometric Monitoring: Texas's Own Law, CUBI
Employers increasingly use fingerprint or facial-recognition time clocks. Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14, is the best-known law of this kind, requiring written consent and creating a private right of action with statutory damages; it does not apply outside Illinois. Texas, however, is not simply a state with no biometric law. It has its own biometric statute with a materially different structure: the Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code section 503.001, enacted in 2009, one year after Illinois's BIPA, making Texas the second state in the country to pass a dedicated biometric privacy law.

CUBI prohibits capturing a person's biometric identifier, defined as a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or record of hand or face geometry, for a commercial purpose unless the person is informed beforehand and gives consent. Unlike BIPA, CUBI does not require that consent be in writing, giving Texas employers more flexibility in how they document it, though the consent still has to be affirmative and precede collection. CUBI also restricts selling, leasing, or disclosing a captured identifier, with limited exceptions, and requires destruction within a reasonable time after the collection purpose ends. Section 503.001(c-2) is directly relevant to workplace time clocks and access-control systems: when a biometric identifier is captured for a security purpose, the statute presumes that purpose expires when the employment relationship ends, which shapes how long an employer can retain a former employee's fingerprint or face-geometry record.
CUBI has no private right of action; individuals cannot sue under it directly. It is enforced exclusively by the Texas Attorney General, with civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation, and that authority is not theoretical. In July 2024, the Texas Attorney General secured a $1.4 billion settlement with Meta, the largest privacy settlement ever obtained by a single state, over Facebook's use of facial recognition on photographs without the consent CUBI requires, the first lawsuit and settlement brought under the statute. That case involved consumer-facing facial recognition rather than employment, but it shows Texas's biometric law carries real enforcement risk that employers using biometric time clocks should take seriously. See our Texas biometric privacy guide for more on how CUBI works outside employment.
What Texas Employees Can Do About Monitoring Concerns
The right response depends on what happened. A camera in a restroom or locker room can support a law enforcement report under the invasive visual recording statute plus a civil claim. An intercepted conversation supports both a criminal complaint and a civil suit for the $10,000 statutory damages under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code chapter 123. A biometric time clock used without CUBI consent is not something an employee sues over directly, but it can be reported to the Texas Attorney General's consumer protection division.
Monitoring tied to a protected characteristic, a workers' compensation claim, or an AI-driven decision made with intent to discriminate may fall under the Texas Workforce Commission, the NLRB, or a TRAIGA complaint to the Attorney General instead. Because Texas's rules are split across criminal law, civil remedies, a biometric statute, and federal law, keep records and consult a Texas-licensed employment attorney. 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 Texas 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 Texas for advice about a particular situation.
Related articles
- Employee Monitoring Laws by State
- Texas Recording Laws
- Texas Workplace Recording Laws
- Texas GPS Tracking Laws
- Texas Biometric Privacy Laws
- US Recording Laws by State

Last updated: July 9, 2026. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of that date.
More Texas Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Texas require my employer to notify me before monitoring my email or internet use?
No. Texas has not enacted a Connecticut- or New York-style electronic-monitoring notice statute. Claims about a 'Texas Government Code Chapter 542A' or a 'Texas Privacy Protection Act' requiring notice are incorrect; employers rely on the federal ordinary-course-of-business exception instead.
Can my Texas employer ask for my social media password?
Yes, as a legal matter. Texas is not one of the 27 states that restrict employer requests for social media credentials. However, an employer that accesses the account without authorization, rather than merely asking, risks separate liability under the federal Stored Communications Act.
Is Texas a one-party or two-party consent state for recording conversations?
Texas is a one-party consent state under Tex. Penal Code section 16.02. Unlawful interception is a second-degree felony, and the intercepted party can also sue for $10,000 in statutory damages per occurrence under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code chapter 123.
Can my employer GPS track a company vehicle I drive in Texas?
Generally yes, if the company owns the vehicle. Tex. Penal Code section 16.06 only criminalizes installing a tracker on a vehicle owned or leased by someone else, so a vehicle the employer owns outright falls outside the statute.
Can my employer install a tracking device on my personal car in Texas?
Not without your consent. Installing a tracker on a vehicle owned or leased by another person is a Class A misdemeanor under Tex. Penal Code section 16.06 unless the owner or lessee's effective consent was obtained first.
Can my Texas employer put a camera in the restroom or locker room?
No. Tex. Penal Code section 21.15, Invasive Visual Recording, is a state jail felony that, as of September 1, 2025, covers any place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, including employer-installed cameras in those spaces.
Can my Texas employer require a fingerprint or face scan for the time clock?
Only with informed consent. The Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code section 503.001, requires notice and consent before capturing a biometric identifier for a commercial purpose, though enforcement runs through the Texas Attorney General rather than a private lawsuit.
What can I do if I think my Texas employer violated a monitoring-related law?
It depends on the statute. Illegal recording supports a criminal complaint and a civil suit for statutory damages; a restroom camera supports a law enforcement report; an unconsented biometric time clock can be reported to the Texas Attorney General under CUBI. Consult a Texas employment attorney about your facts.
Updates
Clarified the Texas wiretap civil remedy: Section 123.004 sets $10,000 per occurrence as a floor, with actual damages recoverable only above that amount, not added on top of it.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
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.
Texas Business & Commerce Code
§ 503.001CAPTURE OR USE OF BIOMETRIC IDENTIFIERIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
(a) In this section: (1) "Artificial intelligence system" has the meaning assigned by Section 551.001. (2) "Biometric identifier" means a retina or iris scan, fingerprint, voiceprint, or record of hand or face geometry. (b) A person may not capture a biometric identifier of an individual for a commercial purpose unless the person: (1) informs the individual before capturing the biometric identifier; and (2) receives the individual's consent to capture the biometric identifier. (b-1) For purposes of Subsection (b), an individual has not been informed of and has not provided consent for the capture or storage of a biometric identifier of an individual for a commercial purpose based solely on the existence of an image or other media containing one or more biometric identifiers of the individual on the Internet or other publicly available source unless the image or other media was made publicly available by the individual to whom the biometric identifiers relate.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at statutes.capitol.texas.gov
Also relied on in: Amazon Ring Sued Over "Familiar Faces" Facial Recognition (2026), Alabama Smart Glasses Recording Laws, Oklahoma Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026
Texas Penal Code
§ 16.02UNLAWFUL INTERCEPTION, USE, OR DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ORAL, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONSIn forcecited in 17 of our articles
(a) In this section: (1) "Communication common carrier," "computer trespasser," "contents," "covert entry," "electronic communication," "intercept," "interception device," "investigative or law enforcement officer," "oral communication," "protected computer," and "wire communication" have the meanings assigned by Article 18A.001, Code of Criminal Procedure. (2) "Immediate life-threatening situation" and "member of a law enforcement unit specially trained to respond to and deal with life-threatening situations" have the meanings assigned by Article 18A.201, Code of Criminal Procedure.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at statutes.capitol.texas.gov
Cited in 39 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Texas courts have applied Section 16.02 to contested recordings. Long v. State (2017) held the oral communication definition carries a reasonable expectation of privacy test, sustaining a conviction over a covert locker room recording. Banargent v. State (2007) held a jail inmate impliedly consented, so no Section 16.02 violation.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Banargent v. State (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) 2007, 228 S.W.3d 393)✓Jail phone prompts and posted notices warned that calls could be recorded, and a recorded call captured the defendant admitting he stabbed the victim; the court held he impliedly consented, so the recording did not violate Section 16.02.
- Long v. State (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas 2017, 535 S.W.3d 511)✓A school board member had her daughter hide a phone in a visiting locker room to record the coach's halftime speech and sent it to the board; the court held Section 16.02's 'oral communication' incorporates the expectation of privacy test, which the coach met.
- Siddiq v. State (Court of Appeals of Texas 2016, 502 S.W.3d 387)✓Police automatically recorded a DWI arrestee's call to his father from the jail book-in desk, capturing him saying he was drunk; the court applied the law enforcement exception to hold the recording did not violate Section 16.02, so admitting it was not error.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Texas Security Camera Laws: Residential, Commercial, and Privacy Rules, Texas Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Privacy, and Rights, Texas Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Exceptions
§ 21.15INVASIVE VISUAL RECORDINGIn forcecited in 15 of our articles
(a) In this section: (1) "Female breast" means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola. (2) "Intimate area" means the naked or clothed genitals, pubic area, anus, buttocks, or female breast of a person. (3) "Changing room" means a room or portioned area provided for or primarily used for the changing of clothing and includes dressing rooms, locker rooms, and swimwear changing areas. (3-a) "Place in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy" means a place in which a reasonable person would believe that the person could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that the act of undressing would be photographed or visually recorded by another or that a visual image of the person undressing would be broadcasted or transmitted by another. The term includes a bathroom, bedroom, and changing room. (4) "Promote" has the meaning assigned by Section 43.21.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at statutes.capitol.texas.gov
Cited in 44 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):The Court of Criminal Appeals struck down the 2007 improper photography provision at Penal Code 21.15(b)(1), and Ex parte Shay (2016) set aside a conviction under it. The Legislature re-enacted the section in 2015, and Ex Parte Kamilah a Hamilton (2020) held the current subsection (b)(1) survives strict scrutiny and is not overbroad.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ex Parte Nyabwa (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) 2011, 366 S.W.3d 719)✓Charged with improper photography, Nyabwa attacked section 21.15(b)(1) by pretrial habeas; the court of appeals held the 2007 subsection regulated the photographer's intent rather than speech and was neither overbroad nor vague. Ex parte Thompson struck it down in 2014.
- Ex parte Shay (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas 2016, 507 S.W.3d 731)✓Shay pleaded guilty under section 21.15(b)(1) before Ex parte Thompson struck that subsection down; the Court of Criminal Appeals held his favorable plea bargain did not estop habeas relief, set aside the conviction, and remanded to dismiss the indictment.
- Ex Parte Kamilah a Hamilton (Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston) 2020)✓Indicted under the 2015 version of section 21.15(b)(1) for broadcasting an image of a complainant's intimate area, Hamilton claimed facial overbreadth; the court held the rewritten subsection survives strict scrutiny, is not overbroad, and affirmed denial of relief.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Texas School Recording Laws: Classrooms, Cameras, and Student Privacy, Texas Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights, Texas Video Recording Laws: What Is Legal and What Is Not
§ 16.06UNLAWFUL INSTALLATION OF TRACKING DEVICEIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) In this section: (1) "Electronic or mechanical tracking device" means a device capable of emitting an electronic frequency or other signal that may be used by a person to identify, monitor, or record the location of another person or object. (2) "Motor vehicle" has the meaning assigned by Section 501.002, Transportation Code. (b) A person commits an offense if the person knowingly installs an electronic or mechanical tracking device on a motor vehicle owned or leased by another person. (c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-26 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at statutes.capitol.texas.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ex Parte Herbert E. Dishman III (Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont) 2018)“…offense of unlawful installation of a tracking device. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 16.06 (West 2011). After an evidentiary hear…”
- Wendi Mae Davidson v. State (Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) 2008)“…Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 18.21 (West Supp. 2007); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 16.06 (West 2003). Appellant also asserted…”
- Davidson v. State (Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin) 2008, 249 S.W.3d 709)“…9; Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 18.21 (West Supp.2007); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 16.06 (West 2003). Appellant also asserted t…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: GPS Tracking Laws by State: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026), Texas GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
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
- Tex. Penal Code § 16.02, Unlawful Interception, Use, or Disclosure of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications(statutes.capitol.texas.gov).gov
- Tex. Penal Code § 16.06, Unlawful Installation of Tracking Device(statutes.capitol.texas.gov).gov
- Tex. Penal Code § 21.15, Invasive Visual Recording(statutes.capitol.texas.gov).gov
- Ex parte Thompson, 442 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014)(courtlistener.com)
- H.B. 1465, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025), amending Tex. Penal Code § 21.15 effective September 1, 2025(capitol.texas.gov).gov
- Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 503.001, Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI)(statutes.capitol.texas.gov).gov
- Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 123, Interception of Communication (civil remedy)(statutes.capitol.texas.gov).gov
- Texas Data Privacy and Security Act overview, Office of the Attorney General(texasattorneygeneral.gov).gov
- H.B. 149, 89th Leg., R.S. (2025), Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act (TRAIGA)(capitol.texas.gov).gov
- Attorney General Ken Paxton Secures $1.4 Billion Settlement with Meta Over Unauthorized Capture of Biometric Data(texasattorneygeneral.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 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. § 2511 – Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited(uscode.house.gov).gov