Michigan
Michigan Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 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. · 8 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Michigan law permits Ring doorbell cameras on residential property, but the rules around audio recording, video surveillance, and neighbor privacy create important boundaries. The state's eavesdropping statutes (MCL 750.539a through 750.539j) govern when and how these devices can capture conversations, while common-law privacy protections and local HOA rules add additional layers of regulation.

Michigan Audio Recording Laws and Ring Doorbells
Michigan's eavesdropping statute, MCL 750.539a, defines "eavesdrop" as overhearing, recording, amplifying, or transmitting any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse. On its face, the statute appears to require all-party consent. However, Michigan courts have interpreted this language differently.
The Michigan Court of Appeals determined that the phrase "discourse of others" means the statute does not apply when one party to the conversation records it. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reached the same conclusion in Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022), holding that Michigan's eavesdropping statute requires only one-party consent. In practice, this means Michigan operates as a one-party consent state.
What This Means for Ring Doorbells
Ring doorbells with audio recording capabilities capture sound whenever motion is detected or the doorbell button is pressed. Under Michigan's one-party consent framework, the homeowner is not considered a party to conversations happening on their porch between visitors or delivery drivers. Recording those conversations without the knowledge of any participant could constitute eavesdropping under MCL 750.539c.
The safest approach for Michigan Ring doorbell owners is to post visible notice that audio and video recording is in progress. When visitors see the notice and continue their conversation, courts may consider that implied consent. Without notice, recording private conversations between third parties on your porch could expose you to criminal liability.
MCL 750.539c: Eavesdropping Prohibition
Under MCL 750.539c, any person who willfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon a private conversation without the consent of all parties is guilty of a felony. This applies whether the person using the device is present during the conversation or not. The penalty is imprisonment for up to 2 years, a fine of up to $2,000, or both.
Video Recording Laws and Ring Doorbells in Michigan
Michigan does not have a single comprehensive video surveillance statute for residential properties. Instead, video recording is governed by MCL 750.539d, which prohibits installing or using any device in a "private place" to observe, photograph, or record events without the consent of the person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy in that location.
Ring doorbells mounted on a front door typically capture footage of the homeowner's porch, walkway, and portions of the street or sidewalk. These areas generally do not carry a reasonable expectation of privacy, which makes video-only recording from a standard Ring doorbell position legal in most circumstances.
More directly, the statute contains an express carve-out for exactly this situation. MCL 750.539d(2) provides: "This section does not prohibit security monitoring in a residence if conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose." A homeowner or principal occupant who installs a Ring doorbell to monitor their own residence is outside the section by its own terms, so long as the monitoring is not conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose. The identical exemption appears at MCL 750.539j(4) for the voyeurism provisions discussed below.
Where Video Recording Becomes Problematic
Problems arise when a Ring doorbell camera captures areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a neighbor's bedroom window or bathroom. The reach of MCL 750.539d in that scenario is narrower than it first appears, for two reasons.
First, the conduct element is locational. Subsection (1)(a) prohibits installing, placing, or using a device "in any private place" without the consent of the person entitled to privacy there, so the prohibition attaches to where the device itself sits. A camera mounted on the owner's own porch is not installed, placed, or used inside the neighbor's private place, and whether the section reaches a device sited outside the private space it happens to see into is an open question in Michigan rather than a settled rule. Second, the subsection (2) residential security-monitoring exemption applies to a homeowner monitoring their own residence. Together, those make a 539d prosecution over an ordinary doorbell camera a difficult case for the state.
The provisions that reach imagery of a person regardless of where the camera is mounted are the voyeurism provisions of MCL 750.539j, discussed below, and they carry their own residential exemption and their own narrow elements. In practice, the realistic exposure for an overreaching doorbell camera is civil rather than criminal.
Michigan also recognizes four common-law privacy torts, including intrusion upon seclusion. A neighbor who believes your Ring doorbell unreasonably invades their privacy could file a civil lawsuit seeking damages, even if the recording does not technically violate MCL 750.539d.
MCL 750.539j: Voyeurism Protections
MCL 750.539j is a voyeurism statute, and a state of undress is an element of the offense rather than an emphasis within a broader privacy ban. Subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) reach surveilling, photographing, or otherwise capturing or recording the image of an individual "clad only in his or her undergarments, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual" under circumstances in which that individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Ordinary window footage that captures none of those categories does not reach the statute at all.
MCL 750.539j(4) also carries the same residential exemption as MCL 750.539d(2): the section "does not prohibit security monitoring in a residence if conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose." A homeowner monitoring their own residence falls within that exemption. Deliberately aiming a camera to capture a neighbor undressed would be a lewd or lascivious purpose and would fall outside it.

HOA and Ring Doorbells in Michigan
Michigan does not have a state law that explicitly addresses whether homeowners associations or condominium associations can ban Ring doorbells. The authority to regulate these devices comes from each association's governing documents, including the master deed, bylaws, and rules and regulations.
Condominium Associations
Michigan condo associations have significant authority over common elements, which typically include the exterior surfaces of buildings and the exterior side of unit doors. Since Ring doorbells mount on or near the front door, many associations treat installation as an alteration to a common element that requires board approval.
A Michigan condo association may restrict how a doorbell camera operates. Some associations allow Ring doorbells that record only when the doorbell button is pressed but prohibit continuous motion-activated recording. Others require that the camera's field of view be limited to the owner's immediate entryway rather than capturing shared hallways or neighboring unit doors.
HOA Communities
Homeowners associations in single-family home communities generally have less authority to restrict Ring doorbells than condo associations. Most HOA covenants address exterior modifications and aesthetic standards rather than electronic devices. However, an HOA with broadly worded architectural review provisions could require approval before installation.
Michigan law does not override HOA restrictions on Ring doorbells. Homeowners who install a Ring doorbell in violation of their association's rules may face fines, removal orders, or legal action from the association.

Landlord and Tenant Rights for Doorbell Cameras
Michigan landlord-tenant law does not specifically address Ring doorbells or similar devices. General principles of property law and the lease agreement govern the rights of both parties.
Tenant Installation Rights
Tenants in Michigan can typically install a Ring doorbell inside their rental unit without landlord permission, as long as the device does not damage the property or record areas where others have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Installing a Ring doorbell on the exterior of the property is a different matter. Most lease agreements require landlord approval for modifications to the exterior of the building, and a Ring doorbell that requires drilling or wiring would qualify.
Wireless Ring doorbell models that attach with adhesive strips present a gray area. Since they do not permanently alter the property, some landlords permit them without formal approval. However, tenants who install any exterior device without checking their lease risk violating its terms.
Landlord Obligations
Michigan landlords can install security cameras, including Ring doorbells, in common areas of multi-unit properties such as lobbies, parking lots, and exterior entrances. They cannot install recording devices inside a tenant's unit or in areas where tenants have a reasonable expectation of privacy without consent.
If a landlord installs Ring doorbells with audio recording capabilities in common areas, they should provide notice to tenants. While Michigan law does not explicitly require this disclosure, failure to inform tenants about audio recording in shared spaces could create liability under the eavesdropping statute if the device captures private conversations.
Law Enforcement Access to Ring Footage in Michigan
The relationship between Michigan law enforcement and Ring doorbell footage has evolved significantly. As of 2024, approximately 60 Michigan police and sheriff's departments had signed agreements with Amazon granting access to Ring footage through the Neighbors app's Request for Assistance tool. Participating agencies included departments in Grand Rapids, Lansing, Traverse City, and multiple Metro Detroit communities.
Ring's 2024 Policy Change
In January 2024, Amazon permanently discontinued the Request for Assistance feature. Michigan police departments can no longer send bulk requests to Ring users through the Neighbors app asking them to share footage related to investigations.
Current Access Methods
As of 2026, Michigan law enforcement can obtain Ring doorbell footage through three primary channels:
-
Voluntary sharing: A Ring owner can choose to share footage directly with police at any time. No warrant or legal process is required for voluntary disclosure.
-
Warrant or subpoena: Police can obtain a warrant or subpoena compelling Amazon to turn over Ring footage stored in the cloud. Michigan courts issue these orders based on probable cause or other applicable legal standards.
-
Emergency exception: Under the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), Amazon can share Ring footage with law enforcement without a warrant if there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
Michigan Ring owners have no legal obligation to share footage with police absent a valid court order. Refusing a voluntary request carries no legal consequences.

Penalties for Illegal Recording in Michigan
Michigan treats most recording violations as felonies, making the penalties significantly more severe than in many other states.
Criminal Penalties
| Violation | Statute | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eavesdropping (audio) | MCL 750.539c | 2 years | $2,000 |
| Surveillance device in a private place, first offense | MCL 750.539d(3)(a)(i) | 2 years | $2,000 |
| Surveillance device in a private place, repeat offense | MCL 750.539d(3)(a)(ii) | 5 years | $5,000 |
| Distributing material obtained in violation of 539d | MCL 750.539d(3)(b) | 5 years | $5,000 |
| Divulging illegally obtained recordings | MCL 750.539e | 2 years | $2,000 |
| Voyeurism surveillance | MCL 750.539j | 2 years | $2,000 |
| Distributing voyeurism recordings | MCL 750.539j | 5 years | $5,000 |
Both MCL 750.539d(2) and MCL 750.539j(4) exempt security monitoring in a residence conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant, unless it is conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose. A homeowner's own doorbell camera normally sits inside that exemption, so these penalty figures describe the outer limits of the statutes rather than the ordinary risk of owning a Ring device.
Civil Remedies
Under MCL 750.539h, any person whose private conversation is illegally recorded can pursue civil remedies, including:
- An injunction prohibiting further eavesdropping
- All actual damages resulting from the illegal recording
- Punitive damages as determined by the court or jury
This means a neighbor who proves your Ring doorbell illegally recorded their private conversation could recover both compensatory and punitive damages in a civil lawsuit, in addition to any criminal prosecution.
How to Use a Ring Doorbell Legally in Michigan
Following these guidelines can help Michigan residents use Ring doorbells while staying within state law:
Position the camera carefully. Aim your Ring doorbell at your own property, porch, and walkway. Avoid capturing footage of neighbors' windows, private outdoor areas, or any space where someone would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Post visible recording notices. Place a sign near your Ring doorbell stating that audio and video recording is in progress. This provides notice to visitors and may establish implied consent for audio recording purposes.
Check your HOA or condo rules. Review your association's governing documents before installing a Ring doorbell. Submit any required architectural review applications and comply with restrictions on camera positioning or recording modes.
Review your lease agreement. Tenants should check whether their lease permits exterior modifications and get written landlord approval before installing a Ring doorbell on the outside of the property.
Manage your Ring settings. Consider disabling audio recording if you do not want to risk capturing private conversations. Ring devices allow you to toggle audio recording on and off in the app settings.
Understand police requests. You are not required to share Ring footage with law enforcement unless served with a valid warrant or subpoena. Voluntary sharing is your choice.
Keep firmware updated. Regular updates address security vulnerabilities. The 2023 FTC settlement with Amazon over Ring security practices highlights the importance of keeping devices current.
More Michigan Laws
Explore other Michigan legal topics covered on Recording Law:
This article provides general legal information about Ring doorbell laws in Michigan. It is not legal advice. Laws change over time, and court interpretations may vary. Consult a Michigan attorney for advice specific to your situation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to have a Ring doorbell in Michigan?
Ring doorbells are legal in Michigan for residential use. Video recording of your own property and public areas is permitted, and MCL 750.539d(2) expressly exempts security monitoring in a residence conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant unless it is conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose. Audio recording is more restricted under Michigan's eavesdropping statute (MCL 750.539c), so posting a visible notice that recording is in progress helps establish consent.
Can my neighbor complain about my Ring doorbell in Michigan?
A neighbor can file a complaint if your Ring doorbell captures footage of areas where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as the interior of their home through a window. Michigan recognizes the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, which allows civil lawsuits for unreasonable invasions of privacy.
Do Michigan police need a warrant to access Ring doorbell footage?
Yes, as of 2024, Ring discontinued its voluntary law enforcement request program. Michigan police now need a warrant, subpoena, or the homeowner's voluntary consent to access Ring footage. The only exception is an emergency involving imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury under the federal ECPA.
Can my Michigan HOA ban Ring doorbells?
Michigan HOAs and condo associations can restrict or ban Ring doorbells if their governing documents grant authority over exterior modifications or common elements. Condo associations tend to have broader authority because front doors often qualify as common elements under Michigan condominium law.
What are the penalties for illegal recording with a Ring doorbell in Michigan?
Illegal recording in Michigan is a felony. Eavesdropping under MCL 750.539c carries up to 2 years in prison and a $2,000 fine. A first violation of MCL 750.539d carries the same 2 years and $2,000, while a repeat offense or distributing material obtained in violation of the section rises to 5 years and $5,000. Victims can also pursue civil damages, including punitive damages, under MCL 750.539h. Note that MCL 750.539d(2) exempts security monitoring in a residence conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant unless it is conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose, which covers the ordinary homeowner use of a doorbell camera.
Updates
Added the MCL 750.539d(2) and 750.539j(4) exemptions for residential security monitoring by the owner or principal occupant, corrected the description and elements of the voyeurism statute MCL 750.539j, qualified the private-place element of MCL 750.539d, and completed the MCL 750.539d penalty tiers.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the penalties table: a first-offense voyeurism-surveillance violation under MCL 750.539j carries up to 2 years and a $2,000 fine (the 5-year/$5,000 tier applies only to a repeat offense or to photographing/distributing).
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.
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 750.539dInstallation, placement, or use of device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing or eavesdropping in private placeIn forcecited in 30 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person shall not do either of the following: (a) Install, place, or use in any private place, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy in that place, any device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in that place. (b) Distribute, disseminate, or transmit for access by any other person a recording, photograph, or visual image the person knows or has reason to know was obtained in violation of this section. (2) This section does not prohibit security monitoring in a residence if conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose. (3) A person who violates or attempts to violate this section is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(a): (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 24 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Lewis v. LeGrow held a bedroom in a private home is a "private place" under MCL 750.539d and that consenting to sex does not consent to being secretly videotaped there, sustaining civil awards. People v. Wilkens affirmed convictions including one under the section for a camera hidden in a shower used by tenants.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lewis v. LeGrow (Michigan Court of Appeals 2003, 258 Mich. App. 175)✓A man hid a video camera in his own bedroom and taped three women having sex with him; the court held the bedroom was a private place under 539d and that consenting to sex did not mean consenting to be taped, so the jury verdicts against him stood.
- People v. Wilkens (Michigan Court of Appeals 2005, 267 Mich. App. 728)“…ne count of eavesdropping through installation of a camera, MCL 750.539d. [1] The trial court sentenced defenda…”
- People v. Waltonen (Michigan Court of Appeals 2007, 272 Mich. App. 678)“…drug house, MCL 333.7405(l)(d); one count of eavesdropping, MCL 750.539d; and four counts of engaging the servic…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Michigan Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules, Statutes, and Penalties (2026), Michigan Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Doctor Visits (2026)
§ 750.539cEavesdropping upon private conversationIn forcecited in 42 of our articles
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 32 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts read MCL 750.539c to reach third-party eavesdropping only. Sullivan v. Gray (1982) held the statutory phrase "private discourse of others" excludes recording by a participant in the conversation; People v. Lucas (1991) held an officer who answered an arrestee's ringing car phone did not violate the section.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Lucas (Michigan Court of Appeals 1991, 188 Mich. App. 554)✓Police answering the arrested defendant's ringing car phone took drug-purchase calls and testified to them; the court held the officer was not an eavesdropper because there was no private discourse between the sender and some other receiver, so MCL 750.539c was not violated.
- Sullivan v. Gray (Michigan Court of Appeals 1982, 117 Mich. App. 476)✓A party to a phone call about a failed car dealership sale secretly taped it and the transcript was used in later litigation; reading the statute to reach only the private discourse of others, the court held participant recording is not eavesdropping under MCL 750.539c.
- People v. Warner (Michigan Supreme Court 1977, 401 Mich. 186)✓A motel switchboard operator deliberately listened in on a guest's call and reported it to police; the court held her willful eavesdropping violated MCL 750.539c, but the defendant, not shown to be a party to the call, had no standing to suppress the resulting evidence.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Tenant Rights (2026), Michigan Security Camera Laws: Rules for Homes, Businesses, and Neighbors (2026), Michigan Dashcam Laws: Windshield Rules, Audio Recording, and Legal Use (2026)
§ 750.539aDefinitionsIn forcecited in 30 of our articles
As used in sections 539a to 539i: (1) "Private place" means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access. (2) "Eavesdrop" or "eavesdropping" means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse. Neither this definition or any other provision of this act shall modify or affect any law or regulation concerning interception, divulgence or recording of messages transmitted by communications common carriers. (3) "Surveillance" means to secretly observe the activities of another person for the purpose of spying upon and invading the privacy of the person observed. (4) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation or association.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 26 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lewis v. LeGrow (Michigan Court of Appeals 2003, 258 Mich. App. 175)“…such unauthorized installation, is guilty of a felony.... MCL 750.539a provides the definitions of phrases use…”
- People v. Stone (Michigan Supreme Court 2001, 463 Mich. 558)“…permission of all persons engaged in the discourse.” MCL 750.539a(2); MSA 28.807(1)(2). In…”
- People v. Lucas (Michigan Court of Appeals 1991, 188 Mich. App. 554)“…e Commander Turner, in answering the mobile phone, violated MCL 750.539a et seq.; MSA 28.807(1)…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for Landlines, Cell Phones, and VoIP (2026), Michigan Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Legal Limits (2026), Michigan Laws on Recording in Public: First Amendment Rights and Limits (2026)
§ 750.539jSurveillance of or distribution, dissemination, or transmission of recording, photograph, or visual image of individual having reasonable expectation of privacy; prohibited conduct; violation as felony; penalty; exceptions; "surveil" definedIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
(1) A person shall not do any of the following: (a) Surveil another individual who is clad only in his or her undergarments, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (b) Photograph, or otherwise capture or record, the visual image of the undergarments worn by another individual, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (c) Distribute, disseminate, or transmit for access by any other person a recording, photograph, or visual image the person knows or has reason to know was obtained in violation of this section. (2) A person who violates or attempts to violate this section is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(a): (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 17 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts have applied MCL 750.539j to hidden cameras. In People of Michigan v. Jeffrey Thomas Mazur (2015) the Court of Appeals held the statute does not require that a defendant view the recorded material, and that its residential security-monitoring exception does not cover a camera used for a lewd or lascivious purpose.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- In Re L-S Morehead Minor (Michigan Court of Appeals 2026)“…e, was arrested for felony surveilling an unclothed person, MCL 750.539j(1)(a). The trial court authori…”
- In Re K N Klemkow Minor (Michigan Court of Appeals 2024)“…520g(2), and two counts of surveilling an unclothed person, MCL 750.539j. Respondent was arraigned on the crimin…”
- People of Michigan v. Cora Ladane Lymon (Michigan Supreme Court 2024)“…ither naked or clad in undergarments, MCL 28.722(r)(vi) and MCL 750.539j. These offenses all involve a sexual c…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Recording Laws (2026): Consent Rules and Participant Exception, Michigan Video Recording Laws: Surveillance Rules, Consent, and Penalties (2026), Michigan Drone Laws (2026): Privacy Statute, Preemption, and Warrants
§ 750.539hCivil remediesIn forcecited in 22 of our articles
Any parties to any conversation upon which eavesdropping is practiced contrary to this act shall be entitled to the following civil remedies: (a) An injunction by a court of record prohibiting further eavesdropping. (b) All actual damages against the person who eavesdrops. (c) Punitive damages as determined by the court or by a jury.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- McAuley v. General Motors Corp. (Michigan Supreme Court 1998, 457 Mich. 513)“…MSA 4.1801(10)(7), MCL 600.2911(2)(b); MSA 27A.2911(2)(b), MCL 750.539h(c); MSA 28.807(8)(c). In additio…”
- Eide v. Kelsey-Hayes Co. (Michigan Supreme Court 1988, 431 Mich. 26)“…violation); MCL 600.2911; MSA 27A.2911 (libel or slander); MCL 750.539h; MSA 28.807(8) (eavesdropping, allowing…”
- Anzaldua v. Band (Michigan Supreme Court 1998, 457 Mich. 530)“…this act, the court or jury who shall try the same); and MCL 750.539h(c); MSA 28.807(8)(c) (any party to a co…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: MCL 750.539j Penalties and Protections (2026), Michigan AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Michigan Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
§ 750.539eUse or divulgence of information unlawfully obtainedIn forcecited in 10 of our articles
Any person who uses or divulges any information which he knows or reasonably should know was obtained in violation of sections 539b, 539c or 539d is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in a state prison not more than 2 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Warner (Michigan Supreme Court 1977, 401 Mich. 186)“…Auslander overheard `I've got drugs' accidentally and that MCLA 750.539e; MSA 28.807(5) did not bar the admissio…”
- Dickerson v. Raphael (Michigan Court of Appeals 1997, 222 Mich. App. 185)“…ore than 2 years, or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00. [MCL 750.539e; MSA 28.807(5).] Additionally, M…”
- People v. Livingston (Michigan Court of Appeals 1975, 64 Mich. App. 247)“…sections 539b, 539c or 539d is guilty of a felony * * * .” MCLA 750.539e; MSA 28.807(5). "This act shall…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- MCL 750.539a - Definition of Eavesdropping(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539c - Eavesdropping Prohibition(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539d - Installation of Device in Private Place(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539e - Divulging Illegally Obtained Information(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539h - Civil Remedies for Eavesdropping(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 750.539j - Voyeurism Surveillance Prohibition(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Michigan Penal Code Chapter LXXXII - Eavesdropping(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- FTC Action Against Ring for Privacy Violations(ftc.gov).gov
- Ring Ends Law Enforcement Request for Assistance Feature (NPR)(npr.org)
- Michigan Condo Association Ring Doorbell Camera Guidance(micondolaw.com)
- Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022)(courtlistener.com)