Missouri
Missouri 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. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Ring doorbell cameras have become a standard security tool for homeowners across Missouri. These devices record video of your front porch, walkway, and surrounding area, and most models also capture audio. Missouri law treats the video and audio functions differently, so understanding the legal framework before installing a Ring doorbell is essential.
Missouri follows a one-party consent rule for audio recording under RSMo 542.402. That means at least one person in a conversation needs to consent to the recording. For Ring doorbells, this creates specific legal considerations depending on where the camera points, what it picks up, and whether it captures conversations where no party has consented.

Audio Recording Laws and Ring Doorbells in Missouri
Missouri's wiretapping statute, RSMo 542.402, handles the two kinds of communication it covers differently, and the difference matters for doorbell cameras.
For wire communications, the statute makes interception a crime, and RSMo 542.402.2(3) gives a private person an exception where that person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties has given prior consent. That is the familiar one-party consent standard, and as written it applies to wire communications.
Oral communications sit under a separate provision. RSMo 542.402.1(2) makes it a crime to knowingly use a device to intercept an oral communication "when such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication." That paragraph contains no consent element, and the private-party exception in 542.402.2(3) is written for wire communications rather than oral ones. So what limits the reach of the statute for ordinary porch audio is the narrow scope of 1(2) itself, plus the definition of "oral communication" discussed below, not a consent exception.
For Ring doorbell owners, a direct interaction is the easiest case. When you speak with a visitor through your Ring doorbell's two-way talk feature, you are a party to the conversation, and a visitor who is knowingly speaking to a homeowner through a doorbell intercom is not exhibiting the expectation of non-interception that Missouri law requires before a conversation counts as a protected oral communication.
The legal picture changes when your Ring doorbell picks up conversations between other people on or near your property. If two neighbors stop on the sidewalk near your door and have a private conversation, neither is speaking to you. Missouri law protects "oral communications" only when the speaker has "an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation" (RSMo 542.400(8)). Conversations on a public sidewalk carry a lower expectation of privacy than conversations on a private porch.
When Ring Audio Recording May Cross the Line
A Ring doorbell that continuously records audio could capture private conversations between people who never addressed the homeowner at all. While a court would consider whether the speakers had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and whether the device falls within the narrow terms of RSMo 542.402.1(2), recording conversations in areas where people expect some degree of privacy (covered porches, enclosed entryways) carries more legal risk than recording open, visible areas.
To reduce legal exposure, many Missouri Ring owners disable the audio recording feature or post visible signage indicating that audio and video recording is in progress. Signage helps undermine any claim of a reasonable expectation of privacy near your door.
Video Recording Laws and Ring Doorbells
Missouri does not have a broad statute prohibiting outdoor video surveillance on private property. Video recording from a Ring doorbell that captures your porch, driveway, and walkway is generally legal because those areas are visible to the public and carry no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Missouri's invasion of privacy statute, RSMo 565.252, applies to specific situations. The law prohibits knowingly photographing, filming, or videotaping another person without consent when the person is in a state of full or partial nudity, or when the recording is made under or through clothing. This statute targets voyeuristic recording rather than standard security camera footage.
RSMo 565.252 classifies invasion of privacy as a class A misdemeanor. The charge elevates to a class E felony if the images are distributed, if more than one person is recorded during the same incident, or if the offender has a prior conviction for invasion of privacy.
What Your Ring Camera Can and Cannot Record
Pointing a Ring doorbell at your own front door, porch, and walkway is within legal bounds. Problems arise when a camera is angled to peer into a neighbor's windows, capture images inside their home, or record areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Missouri courts evaluate these disputes on a case-by-case basis, weighing the camera's field of view against the neighbor's privacy interests.
Government agencies in Missouri also face restrictions. Under RSMo 542.525, no state agency employee may place a surveillance camera on private property without the landowner's consent, a search warrant, or permission from the highest-ranking law enforcement officer of that agency.

HOA Rules and Ring Doorbells in Missouri
Missouri does not have a state statute specifically governing HOA authority over security cameras or doorbell cameras. Instead, HOA power comes from the community's governing documents: the CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions), bylaws, and architectural guidelines.
Many Missouri HOAs classify Ring doorbells as exterior modifications. This means homeowners may need to submit an application to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) before installation. Common HOA restrictions include requirements about camera color and finish (to match the door frame), limits on how far the camera can protrude from the wall, rules about where the camera can point (prohibiting direct capture of common areas), and approval timelines of 30 to 60 days.
An HOA can fine homeowners for installing a Ring doorbell without prior approval if the governing documents require it. However, an HOA rule cannot authorize conduct that violates Missouri state law. If an HOA attempted to require audio recording of common areas without consent, that rule would conflict with RSMo 542.402.
Challenging HOA Camera Restrictions
If an HOA denies your Ring doorbell installation request, review the CC&Rs for the specific language authorizing the restriction. Missouri courts generally uphold HOA rules that are reasonable and consistently enforced. A blanket ban on all exterior cameras may face a stronger legal challenge than a rule that simply regulates placement and appearance.
Landlord and Tenant Rights for Ring Doorbells
Missouri's landlord-tenant laws (RSMo Chapter 441) do not specifically address doorbell cameras. The legal framework depends on the lease agreement and general property law principles.
Tenant Installation Rights
If a lease prohibits exterior modifications, installing a Ring doorbell without landlord permission could be a lease violation. Many Ring doorbell models require drilling into the door frame or wall, which qualifies as a physical alteration. Battery-powered models that attach with adhesive strips may not trigger the same restriction, but tenants should confirm with their landlord before installing any device.
Tenants who install a Ring doorbell with landlord permission own the footage and control the Ring account. The landlord does not have a right to access the tenant's Ring recordings unless the tenant voluntarily shares them.
Landlord Installation Rights
Landlords can install security cameras, including Ring doorbells, on exterior areas of their rental property (main entrances, parking lots, common hallways). Audio recording in these areas still falls under RSMo 542.402, so landlords in Missouri need to consider both the wire-communication consent rule and the separate oral-communication prohibition in 542.402.1(2). A landlord who records audio in areas where tenants hold private conversations could face wiretapping charges.
Landlords cannot install cameras that record inside a tenant's private living space. Doing so would violate RSMo 565.252 and potentially Missouri's implied warranty of habitability, which includes the right to quiet enjoyment of the premises.

Law Enforcement Access to Ring Doorbell Footage in Missouri
Missouri law enforcement can request Ring doorbell footage, but the process has legal guardrails.
As of January 2024, Ring (owned by Amazon) requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant, subpoena, or court order before the company will release customer footage. Ring ended its previous practice of allowing police to directly request footage from users through the Neighbors app without legal process.
Missouri police can still knock on your door and ask you to voluntarily share Ring footage. You have no legal obligation to comply with a voluntary request. If police present a valid search warrant, you (or Ring) must provide the requested footage.
In emergency situations involving imminent danger of death or serious physical injury, federal law (18 U.S.C. 2702) allows Ring to disclose footage to law enforcement without a warrant. This exception is narrow and Ring states it evaluates each emergency request individually.
Fourth Amendment Protections
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Missouri courts have recognized that individuals retain some expectation of privacy in their home surveillance footage. Law enforcement cannot compel you to continuously share Ring footage or install a Ring camera for police monitoring purposes without proper legal authorization.
Penalties for Illegal Recording in Missouri
Missouri imposes serious penalties for illegal recording:
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illegal wiretapping (RSMo 542.402) | Class E felony | 4 years | $10,000 |
| Invasion of privacy (RSMo 565.252) | Class A misdemeanor | 1 year | $2,000 |
| Invasion of privacy with distribution | Class E felony | 4 years | $10,000 |

Beyond criminal penalties, RSMo 542.418 creates a civil cause of action, but it is narrower than the criminal statute. Subsection 2 gives the claim to "any person whose wire communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used" in violation of sections 542.400 to 542.422. A doorbell camera that picks up a doorstep or sidewalk conversation is intercepting an oral communication as defined in RSMo 542.400(8), not a wire communication, so 542.418 does not supply a civil claim in that situation. Where the section does apply, damages are the greater of actual damages or liquidated damages computed at $100 per day of violation or $10,000, plus punitive damages on a showing of a willful or intentional violation and reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs.
A felony conviction for illegal wiretapping in Missouri carries collateral consequences beyond prison time, including potential loss of professional licenses, difficulty finding employment, and restrictions on firearm ownership.
How to Use a Ring Doorbell Legally in Missouri
Following these practices helps Missouri Ring doorbell owners stay within the law:
Position the camera carefully. Aim your Ring doorbell at your own property: the front door, porch, walkway, and driveway. Avoid angling the camera to capture the interior of a neighbor's home or areas where people expect privacy.
Consider disabling audio recording. Turning off audio eliminates the risk of capturing conversations between people who never addressed you, which is where Missouri's wiretapping exposure is concentrated.
Post visible signage. A sign near your Ring doorbell stating "Audio and Video Recording in Progress" reduces any visitor's claim to a reasonable expectation of privacy. This simple step provides significant legal protection.
Check your HOA rules. Before installing a Ring doorbell, review your CC&Rs and submit any required applications to the architectural review committee.
Review your lease. Tenants should get written landlord permission before installing any doorbell camera that requires physical modification to the property.
Manage your footage responsibly. Avoid sharing Ring footage publicly (on social media, for example) in ways that could violate another person's privacy rights. Share footage with law enforcement only in response to a valid warrant or voluntarily at your own discretion.
Keep your Ring software updated. Ring regularly updates its privacy settings and features. Review your motion zones, audio settings, and sharing preferences periodically.
More Missouri Laws
Missouri has specific laws covering many areas that affect residents. These related guides provide detailed information on other legal topics in the state:
- Missouri Recording Laws cover the full scope of one-party consent rules for phone calls, in-person conversations, and electronic communications.
- Missouri Hit and Run Laws explain reporting requirements and penalties for leaving the scene of an accident.
- Missouri Lemon Law outlines protections for buyers of defective new vehicles.
This article provides general legal information about Ring doorbell camera laws in Missouri. Laws change, and their application depends on specific facts. Consult an attorney for advice specific to your situation. Information is current as of April 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record audio with my Ring doorbell in Missouri?
Missouri is a one-party consent state under RSMo 542.402, and recording a conversation you take part in, such as a two-way talk exchange at your door, is the safest case. The statute is not symmetrical, though: the private-party consent exception in RSMo 542.402.2(3) is written for wire communications, while the oral-communication prohibition in 542.402.1(2) has no consent element and instead reaches a device that transmits by radio or interferes with a transmission. Recording conversations between third parties who expect privacy carries the most risk, and posting a visible sign indicating audio recording helps reduce it.
Can my HOA in Missouri ban Ring doorbells?
Missouri HOAs can regulate Ring doorbell installation through their CC&Rs and architectural guidelines. They may require approval before installation and impose rules about placement and appearance. Whether a complete ban would survive a legal challenge depends on the specific HOA governing documents and how the restriction is enforced.
Do Missouri police need a warrant to access my Ring footage?
As of January 2024, Ring requires law enforcement to present a warrant, subpoena, or court order before releasing customer footage. Police can ask you to voluntarily share footage, but you have no obligation to do so without a warrant. In narrow emergency situations involving imminent danger, Ring may disclose footage without a warrant under federal law.
Can my landlord in Missouri see my Ring doorbell recordings?
If you installed the Ring doorbell and own the account, your landlord has no right to access your recordings. The footage belongs to the account holder. A landlord would need your voluntary consent or a valid court order to obtain your Ring recordings.
Can I sue someone in Missouri for recording me with a doorbell camera?
The civil remedy in RSMo 542.418 is limited. Subsection 2 gives a cause of action to any person whose wire communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of sections 542.400 to 542.422. A doorbell camera that captures you talking on a porch or sidewalk is intercepting an oral communication under RSMo 542.400(8), not a wire communication, so that section would not give you a claim. Other legal theories may still apply depending on the facts, and criminal liability under RSMo 542.402 or 565.252 is a separate question from a private lawsuit.
What are the penalties for illegal recording in Missouri?
Illegal wiretapping under RSMo 542.402 is a class E felony, punishable by up to 4 years in prison and fines up to $10,000. Invasion of privacy under RSMo 565.252 is a class A misdemeanor with up to 1 year in jail and a $2,000 fine. Distribution of illegally obtained recordings elevates the charge to a class E felony.
Updates
Corrected how this page describes Missouri wiretapping law: the private-party one-party-consent exception in RSMo 542.402.2(3) applies to wire communications while oral communications fall under the separate, narrower prohibition in 542.402.1(2), the civil lawsuit in RSMo 542.418 reaches only intercepted wire communications and not doorstep or sidewalk conversations, and the RSMo 565.252 offense is now named without the repealed "first degree" label.
Corrected the felony class and maximum prison exposure for Missouri's enhanced invasion-of-privacy offense: distributing the images, recording more than one person, or a prior conviction elevates RSMo 565.252 to a class E felony (up to 4 years), not a class D felony (up to 7 years).
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the RSMo 542.418 civil damages formula: the statute guarantees the GREATER of actual damages, $100/day of violation, OR a $10,000 floor. The article had dropped the $10,000 alternative.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the description of Missouri's wiretapping statute (RSMo 542.402 covers wire communications and radio/interference-qualified oral-communication devices, not a general "electronic communication" offense) and fixed a misattributed citation (the $10,000 fine comes from RSMo 558.002, not 558.011).
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.
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVII (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE), Chapter 542
§ 542.402Penalty for illegal wiretapping, permitted activities.In forcecited in 17 of our articles
1. Except as otherwise specifically provided in sections 542.400 to 542.422, a person is guilty of a class E felony and upon conviction shall be punished as provided by law, if such person: (1) Knowingly intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire communication; (2) Knowingly 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 transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication; provided, however, that nothing in sections 542.400 to 542.422 shall be construed to prohibit the use by law enforcement officers of body microphones and transmitters in undercover investigations for the acquisition of evidence and the protection of law enforcement officers and others working under their direction in such investigations; (3) Knowingly discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire communication, when he knows or has reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire communication in…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Federal courts in Missouri have applied section 542.402 to covert audio recording. Fotoohighiam v. The City of Columbia Missouri (2025) let a wiretap count over recorded attorney-client jail calls proceed, with no prior consent shown, and Ward (2026) found a claim over a secretly recorded workplace conversation would not be futile.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514)“…nn. § 750 .539e (West 1991); Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 (2000); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 (2000); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-702 (19…”
- Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A. (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1999, 191 F.3d 463)“…p. 1995); Minn.Stat. Ann. §§ 626A.02, 626A.13 (West 1998); Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 542.402 , 542.418 (1996); Mont.Code Ann. § 45-8…”
- John Doe v. SSM Health Care Corporation (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2025, 126 F.4th 1329)✓Patients alleged a hospital's patient portal secretly sent health data to Facebook, pleading a Missouri wiretap claim under 542.402; the Eighth Circuit addressed only removal, held the wiretap count did not change that analysis, and affirmed remand without reaching its merits.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Missouri Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Missouri Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026)
§ 542.525Surveillance or game cameras on private property, state and local government prohibited from placing without landowner consent.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
No employee of a state agency or a political subdivision of the state shall place any surveillance camera or game camera on private property without first obtaining consent from the landowner or the landowner's* designee; a search warrant as required by and under Article I, Section 15 of the Constitution of Missouri or the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States; or permission from the highest ranking law enforcement chief or officer of the agency or political subdivision, provided that permission of the highest ranking law enforcement chief or officer of the agency or political subdivision is valid only when the camera is facing a location that is open to public access or use and the camera is located within one hundred feet of the intended surveillance location.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Also relied on in: Missouri Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
§ 542.418Use of contents of wiretap in civil action, limitations on — illegal wiretap, cause of action, damages, attorney fees and costs — good faith reliance on court order a prima facie defense.In forcecited in 12 of our articles
1. The contents of any wire communication or evidence derived therefrom shall not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any civil or administrative proceeding, except in civil actions brought pursuant to this section. 2. Any person whose wire communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of sections 542.400 to 542.422 shall: (1) Have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use such communications; and (2) Be entitled to recover from any such person: (a) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation or ten thousand dollars whichever is greater; (b) Punitive damages on a showing of a willful or intentional violation of sections 542.400 to 542.422; and (c) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. 3. A good faith reliance on a court order or on the provisions of section 542.408 shall constitute a prima facie defense to any civil or criminal action brought under sections 542.400 to 542.422.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Phillips v. American Motorist Insurance Co. (Missouri Court of Appeals 1999, 996 S.W.2d 584)“…int on appeal is that the trial court erred in holding that § 542.418, RSMo 1994, 1 of the Missouri Wi…”
- Ward (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2026)“…e Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 is stated as a criminal statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.418 creates a private right of action in a…”
- Fotoohighiam v. The City of Columbia Missouri (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2025)“…red. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.418.2. However, it is not unlawful under th…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP, Missouri Smart Glasses Recording Laws, Missouri AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
§ 542.400Definitions.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
As used in sections 542.400 to 542.422, the following words and phrases mean: (1) "Aggrieved person", a person who was a party to any intercepted wire communication or a person against whom the interception was directed; (2) "Communication common carrier", an individual or corporation undertaking to transport messages for compensation; (3) "Contents", when used with respect to any wire communication, includes any information concerning the identity of the parties, the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication; (4) "Court of competent jurisdiction", any circuit court having general criminal jurisdiction within the territorial jurisdiction where the communication is to be intercepted including any circuit judge specially assigned by the supreme court of Missouri pursuant to section 542.404; (5) "Electronic, mechanical, or other device", any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire communication other than: (a) Any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or facility, or any component thereof, owned by the user or furnished to the subscriber or user by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business and being used by…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Phillips v. American Motorist Insurance Co. (Missouri Court of Appeals 1999, 996 S.W.2d 584)“…Senate Bill 693 which became effective on January 1, 1995. § 542.400, RSMo Supp.1995. The Wiretap Act is found in…”
- Lou Angel John Dilliner Scott Malone v. Thomas L. Williams Sylvia A. Byrnes-Ales Donna Humphrey the City of Webb City, a Municipal Corporation (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 1993, 12 F.3d 786)“…988 & Supp. IV1992), and Missouri wiretap law, Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 542.400-.424 (Supp. 1992). We affirm. An…”
- Ward (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2026)“…p statute. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.400 et seq. are the Missouri wiretap statut…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 565
§ 565.252Invasion of privacy, penalty.In forcecited in 13 of our articles
1. A person commits the offense of invasion of privacy if he or she knowingly: (1) Photographs, films, videotapes, produces, or otherwise creates an image of another person, without the person's consent, while the person is in a state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or (2) Photographs, films, videotapes, produces, or otherwise creates an image of another person under or through the clothing worn by that other person for the purpose of viewing the body of or the undergarments worn by that other person without that person's consent.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Alexander (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2009, 574 F.3d 484)“…contends, because the Missouri invasioh-of-privacy statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 565.252, only prohibits the filming of a nude p…”
- T.S.H. v. Green (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2021, 996 F.3d 915)“…e where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252.1(1). Reasonable officers could have be…”
- United States v. Michael Alexander (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2009)“…contends, because the Missouri invasion-of-privacy statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252, only prohibits the filming of a nude p…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Consent, Missouri Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent (2026), Missouri Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and Neighbor Rules
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 558
§ 558.011Sentence of imprisonment, terms — conditional release.In forcecited in 11 of our articles
1. The authorized terms of imprisonment, including both prison and conditional release terms, are: (1) For a class A felony, a term of years not less than ten years and not to exceed thirty years, or life imprisonment; (2) For a class B felony, a term of years not less than five years and not to exceed fifteen years; (3) For a class C felony, a term of years not less than three years and not to exceed ten years; (4) For a class D felony, a term of years not to exceed seven years; (5) For a class E felony, a term of years not to exceed four years; (6) For a class A misdemeanor, a term not to exceed one year; (7) For a class B misdemeanor, a term not to exceed six months; (8) For a class C misdemeanor, a term not to exceed fifteen days.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 128 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rentschler v. Nixon (Supreme Court of Missouri 2010, 311 S.W.3d 783)“…When all were sentenced, the conditional release statute, section 558.011, RSMo 1978, was silent regarding whether viol…”
- Hall v. Missouri Bd. of Probation and Parole (Missouri Court of Appeals 1999, 10 S.W.3d 540)“…court erroneously declared and applied the law by applying § 558.011, RSMo 1994, as opposed to the 1986 version, t…”
- State v. Quisenberry (Supreme Court of Missouri 1982, 639 S.W.2d 579)“…If not, court imposition of a longer sentence is error. Section 558.011, RSMo Cum.Supp.1981, provides in pertinent pa…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Missouri DWI Laws: Penalties, BAC Limit & License (2026), Missouri Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
§ 558.002Fines for felonies.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
1. Except as otherwise provided for an offense outside this code, a person who has been convicted of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine which does not exceed: (1) For a class C, D, or E felony, ten thousand dollars; (2) For a class A misdemeanor, two thousand dollars; (3) For a class B misdemeanor, one thousand dollars; (4) For a class C misdemeanor, seven hundred fifty dollars; (5) For a class D misdemeanor, five hundred dollars; (6) For an infraction, four hundred dollars; or (7) If the person has gained money or property through the commission of the offense, to pay an amount, fixed by the court, not exceeding double the amount of the person's gain from the commission of the offense.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- STATE OF MISSOURI v. WARREN DALE BRANNING, Defendant-Respondent (Missouri Court of Appeals 2024)“…unishable upon conviction under Sections 558.011 and 558.002, RSMo, in that on or about August 18, 2021, i…”
- State of Missouri v. Ashley Colville (Supreme Court of Missouri 2024)“…punishable upon conviction under Sections 558.011 and 558.002, RSMo, in that on or about September 2…”
- State of Missouri v. Andrew P. Minnick (Missouri Court of Appeals 2023)“…viction under Sections 562.012, 566.100, 558.011, and 558.002, RSMo, in that on or about October 18,…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2702Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or recordsIn forcecited in 18 of our articles
Except as provided in subsection (b) or (c)— a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service; and a person or entity providing remote computing service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained on that service— on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such service; solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing any services other than storage or computer processing; and a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 259 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Freeman v. Directv, Inc. (2006) held Sections 2702 and 2707 do not support secondary liability claims such as aiding and abetting or conspiracy. Alexander v. Verizon Wireless (2017) applied Section 2702(c)(4)'s emergency exception and found a provider's good-faith reliance on a law enforcement request a complete defense.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Matthew Alexander v. Verizon Wireless Services, LL (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 2017, 875 F.3d 243)✓A detective sent Verizon a certified emergency form after an arson, and Verizon released the subscriber's non-content cell records; the Fifth Circuit applied an objective good faith standard to section 2702(c)(4) and held Verizon statutorily immune from the SCA suit.
- Doe 1 v. AOL LLC (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2009, 552 F.3d 1077)“…rs, alleging violations of federal electronic privacy law, 18 U.S.C. § 2702 (a). A subclass of AOL members who are…”
- Freeman v. Directv, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2006, 457 F.3d 1001)✓Users whose message board posts were seized from a website operator and passed to DirecTV sued for aiding and abetting and conspiracy; the Ninth Circuit held sections 2702 and 2707 name who can be liable and do not support secondary liability, affirming dismissal.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Stored Communications Act Explained: 18 U.S.C. § 2701, Georgia Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026, Hawaii Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- RSMo 542.402 - Penalty for Illegal Wiretapping, Permitted Activities(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 542.400 - Definitions for Wiretapping Statutes(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 565.252 - Invasion of Privacy, First Degree(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 558.011 - Authorized Terms of Imprisonment(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 542.525 - Government Surveillance Camera Restrictions(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 558.002 - Authorized Fines for Felony Offenses(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- Ring Law Enforcement Information Requests Policy(ring.com)
- Ring Law Enforcement Guidelines(ring.com)
- 18 U.S.C. 2702 - Voluntary Disclosure of Customer Communications(law.cornell.edu)
- Missouri Landlord-Tenant Law - RSMo Chapter 441(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 542.418 - Illegal Wiretap, Cause of Action, Damages, Attorney Fees and Costs(revisor.mo.gov)