Pennsylvania Nursing Home Camera Laws: Esther's Law (HB 1350) and the Wiretap Risk

Pennsylvania has no law giving a nursing home resident or family a right to install a monitoring camera. A bill known as Esther's Law, House Bill 1350, is pending, and it exists specifically to solve a felony-exposure problem that Pennsylvania's all-party consent Wiretap Act creates for anyone recording audio in a facility today.

Information last verified on 2026-08-14. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

This article covers Pennsylvania law as it stands for a nursing home resident or family considering a monitoring camera: the absence of a facility-specific statute, the state's all-party consent Wiretap Act and why it matters so much here, and Esther's Law's real status and what it would change. It does not address Pennsylvania's general recording law outside a care facility in full; see Pennsylvania Recording Laws for that framework.

Does Pennsylvania Have a Nursing Home Camera Law?

No. Pennsylvania's nursing facility regulations, 28 Pa. Code Chapter 211, contain no section addressing cameras, video, or electronic monitoring in a resident's room, based on a review of the chapter's section titles. No provision of the Health Care Facilities Act, before HB 1350's proposed amendment, addresses monitoring devices either.

Because no statute exists, a Pennsylvania resident or family has no state-mandated consent form, no required notice signage, and critically, no exception from the state's Wiretap Act for recording audio in a facility. That last point is the central legal issue for this state, described below.

Pennsylvania's All-Party Consent Wiretap Act: The Central Issue

Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa.C.S. Chapter 57, makes it a third-degree felony to intentionally intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication. Section 5704 sets out the exceptions. The general private-citizen rule, in section 5704(4), is that interception is lawful only when all parties to the communication have given prior consent. The best-known one-party exception, section 5704(2), runs to an investigative or law enforcement officer or someone acting at that officer's direction, and it requires prior approval from the Attorney General or the county district attorney, so a family member cannot invoke it on their own.

One further exception sits close to this page's fact pattern and deserves to be named rather than glossed over. Section 5704(17) permits "any victim, witness or private detective licensed under" the Private Detective Act of 1953 to intercept a communication where that person "is under a reasonable suspicion that the intercepted party is committing, about to commit or has committed a crime of violence and there is reason to believe that evidence of the crime of violence may be obtained from the interception."

Its limits are what matter for a family weighing a camera. It runs to a victim or a witness of the suspected conduct, not to a relative setting a device up in advance on the chance something happens later. It turns on reasonable suspicion of a crime of violence, which section 5702 defines as an enumerated list that includes aggravated assault and strangulation but not simple assault, and does not include neglect. And that suspicion is assessed after the fact, by a prosecutor or a court, against what the person actually knew when the interception occurred. An always-on audio device left running in a room in the hope that it eventually captures something is not what the provision describes, so it is not a substitute for the carve-out HB 1350 would create.

Applied to a nursing home camera, this means a stationary, video-only device generally sits outside the Wiretap Act's reach, because it is not intercepting a communication if it records no sound. The exposure appears the moment audio is added: a device that records a roommate's phone call, a conversation between staff members, or a visit from another resident's family, none of whom consented, risks felony liability under the Act, regardless of the installing family's protective intent. This is the single highest-stakes legal question on this page for Pennsylvania, more so than in most other bill-pending states, because Pennsylvania's default consent rule for audio is so strict. For the general framework governing recorded conversations anywhere in Pennsylvania, not just a care facility, see Pennsylvania Recording Laws.

The Pending Bill: Esther's Law (HB 1350)

House Bill 1350, sponsored by Rep. Marla Brown and known as Esther's Law, was introduced in the 2025-2026 session and referred to the House Committee on Aging and Older Adult Services on April 30, 2025, where it has remained without further recorded action.

The bill would add a new chapter to the Health Care Facilities Act governing "Resident Care Monitoring," limited to nursing facilities. Under it, a resident or guardian could authorize installation of a device in the resident's own room using a Department of Health-prescribed consent form; written consent from every other resident sharing the room would be required before use, with the roommate able to condition consent on the camera being pointed away from them and able to revoke it at any time; the resident would bear installation, removal, and maintenance costs, including internet service; a facility could not deny admission or discharge a resident over a monitoring request; mandatory signage would be required both at the facility's main entrance and at the door of any monitored resident's room; and tampering with a device would carry a 100-dollar fine for a first offense, 500 dollars for each later offense, and classification as a first-degree misdemeanor, on top of Pennsylvania's existing evidence-tampering statute.

The provision that matters most given the discussion above is section 810-D, which would explicitly exempt a consenting resident or guardian from the Wiretap Act's prior-court-approval and consent requirements when listening to sounds recorded by an authorized device. That carve-out is the bill's central purpose: it is designed to solve the exact felony-exposure problem described above, one that remains unsolved as long as HB 1350 has not passed.

HB 1350 has not advanced since its April 2025 committee referral. It is not law, and nothing in it can be relied on as a current right or exception to the Wiretap Act.

Practical Guidance Under the No-Statute Reality

Without an enacted statute or wiretap carve-out, a Pennsylvania family's options are narrower than in most other bill-pending states, specifically because of the audio risk above.

• Default to video-only unless every person the camera could record has clearly consented to audio. This is the highest-stakes practical rule in this cluster for Pennsylvania, given the state's all-party consent default and the narrow scope of its exceptions.
• Check the admission agreement and ask the facility in writing before installing anything, mirroring what HB 1350 would eventually require.
• Get a roommate's written consent in a shared room, even though no statute currently requires it, and be prepared to honor a request to point the camera away from the roommate.
• Understand that a non-consented audio recording of a staff conversation is a live felony exposure today, not merely a technical violation, until a wiretap carve-out like HB 1350's is actually enacted. Do not treat section 5704(17) as a workaround: it is judged on a reasonable suspicion of a crime of violence held at the time of the interception, which is not something a family can establish in advance by leaving a device recording.

Hidden Cameras: The Practical and Legal Risk

A hidden, video-only camera in a resident's own room carries relatively contained legal exposure under current Pennsylvania law, since it does not intercept a communication. A hidden camera with audio is a different matter entirely. Because Pennsylvania has no nursing home wiretap carve-out today, an undisclosed device that records a staff member's or roommate's conversation without their consent risks felony liability under the Wiretap Act regardless of whether the family disclosed the camera to the facility, and regardless of the family's motive in installing it.

There is also a practical risk separate from the legal one: a facility that discovers an undisclosed camera can treat it as a violation of the admission agreement, and Pennsylvania has no statute today barring a facility from responding with discharge or non-renewal the way HB 1350 would if enacted. Families should weigh the felony exposure for audio and the facility-relations risk together before relying on a hidden device.

Using Camera Footage as Evidence of Abuse or Neglect

Camera footage that appears to show abuse or neglect can support a report to the Pennsylvania Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program or the Department of Health, and it can support a civil claim. Footage generally works alongside the resident's medical records, staffing records, and care plan rather than establishing a claim on its own. For a broader look at how a nursing home abuse or neglect claim works, see Nursing Home Abuse & Neglect.

Pennsylvania's Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program

The Pennsylvania Department of Aging administers the state's Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program through 52 Area Agencies on Aging, covering nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and personal care homes. It is the state's established channel for residents and families to raise care concerns, including anything a camera reveals.

Related Resources

• Nursing Home Camera Laws by State covers which states have an enacted electronic monitoring statute and how Pennsylvania compares.
• Pennsylvania Recording Laws covers the state's general all-party consent framework for audio and video recording outside a nursing facility.
• Nursing Home Abuse & Neglect covers how an abuse or neglect claim works once evidence, including camera footage, is in hand.

---

Last updated: 2026-08-14.