Tennessee
Tennessee 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. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Ring doorbells are legal in Tennessee. State law permits video surveillance of public-facing areas and front porches without restriction. For audio, Tennessee follows a one-party consent rule under Tenn. Code Ann. 39-13-601, so recording is lawful when you participate in the conversation or one party consents.
Ring doorbells record both video and audio of activity near your front door. In Tennessee, the legality of that recording depends on what the camera captures, where it points, and whether you are a participant in any conversation being recorded. Video surveillance of public-facing areas is broadly permitted, while audio recording falls under Tennessee's wiretapping and electronic surveillance statutes.
Tennessee's invasion of privacy laws are organized under a dedicated section of the criminal code that covers wiretapping, unlawful photography, and observation without consent. This guide covers each relevant Tennessee statute, explains the criminal and civil penalties, and provides practical steps for using a Ring doorbell within state law.

Audio Recording Laws and Ring Doorbells
Tennessee's audio recording framework is found in TCA Title 39, Chapter 13, Part 6, titled "Invasion of Privacy." The key statute for Ring doorbell owners is TCA 39-13-601.
One-Party Consent Standard (TCA 39-13-601)
TCA 39-13-601 establishes that it is not unlawful for a person who is a party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication to intercept that communication. The statute also permits interception when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent, provided the communication is not intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act.
This one-party consent framework creates a clear rule for Ring doorbell owners. When you answer your Ring doorbell and speak with a visitor through the two-way talk feature, you are a party to that conversation. Your own consent satisfies the one-party requirement, making the audio recording legal under Tennessee law.
Recording Third-Party Conversations
The one-party consent protection does not extend to conversations in which you are not a participant. If your Ring doorbell records a private conversation between two visitors on your porch and you are not involved, no party to that conversation has consented to the recording. Capturing that exchange could violate TCA 39-13-601, which prohibits intentionally intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications without authorization.
The key question is always participation. If you are part of the conversation or one participant consents, the recording is lawful. If no party consents, it is not.
The Criminal Purpose Exception
Tennessee's one-party consent rule includes an important caveat: the interception cannot be "for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act." This means that even if you are a party to a conversation, recording it with the intent to use the recording to commit a crime or civil wrong removes the one-party consent protection.
For most Ring doorbell owners recording for home security purposes, this exception is not a concern. It becomes relevant only when the recording is made with unlawful intent.
Practical Audio Considerations
Ring doorbells have microphones that activate automatically. As of April 2026, Ring devices allow users to disable audio recording through the app settings. Tennessee homeowners concerned about recording third-party conversations have two practical options:
- Disable audio recording entirely through the Ring app, eliminating exposure to the wiretapping statute
- Post a visible notice near the doorbell informing visitors that audio and video recording is in progress
Posting a notice does not create automatic legal protection under Tennessee law, but it helps establish that visitors are aware of the recording and reduces the argument that interception was unauthorized.

Video Recording Laws and Ring Doorbells
Tennessee does not have a blanket statute prohibiting outdoor video surveillance. Video recording from a Ring doorbell pointed at public areas, sidewalks, streets, or your own property is generally legal. Tennessee's restrictions on video recording focus on private settings and on images of a person's intimate areas.
Unlawful Photography (TCA 39-13-605)
TCA 39-13-605 makes it an offense to knowingly photograph an individual, without that individual's prior effective consent, when the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, if the photograph both would offend or embarrass an ordinary person and was taken for the purpose of the defendant's sexual arousal or gratification. The statute defines "photograph" to include video, so a camera falls within it. Both elements must be present. A merely embarrassing image, with no sexual purpose, does not violate this prong.
2025 Public Chapter 474 rewrote the offense effective July 1, 2025 and applies to acts committed on or after that date. It added a second route to liability for a photograph that includes the individual's unclothed intimate area or the individual engaged in sexual activity where the photographer knew the image would include that content, which carries no sexual-purpose element. It also created a separate offense at subsection (a)(3) for a photograph focused on a person's intimate area that would be considered offensive or embarrassing and was taken for sexual arousal or gratification. That subsection contains no reasonable expectation of privacy element and no location element at all. A companion provision states that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy regardless of where the photograph is taken when the photograph is taken in a manner that would offend or embarrass a reasonable person and depicts body areas, clothed or unclothed, that would not be visible to ordinary observation but for that manner of photography.
A standard Ring doorbell recording a front porch and public-facing areas does not trigger TCA 39-13-605. The statute targets photography of private settings and of a person's intimate areas, not general security video of an entryway.
Observation Without Consent (TCA 39-13-607)
TCA 39-13-607 addresses the act of knowingly spying upon or observing another person in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, without consent, if the observation would offend or embarrass an ordinary person and was for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification. This statute specifically notes that being lawfully on the premises is not a defense.
For Ring doorbell owners, TCA 39-13-607 becomes relevant only if the camera is deliberately aimed at areas where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Recording activity visible from public areas does not constitute "observation without consent" under this statute.
Camera Positioning Guidelines
Tennessee courts apply a reasonable expectation of privacy analysis consistent with Fourth Amendment principles. A Ring doorbell that captures:
- Your own porch, driveway, and walkway: Legal
- The public sidewalk and street: Legal
- A neighbor's front yard visible from public areas: Generally legal
- Through a neighbor's window into private rooms: Potentially illegal under TCA 39-13-605 or 39-13-607
Positioning your Ring doorbell to capture only your property and public-facing areas is the safest approach under Tennessee law.


HOA and Ring Doorbells in Tennessee
Tennessee does not have a comprehensive state statute governing homeowners associations for single-family homes. Condominiums created before 2009 fall under the Horizontal Property Act (TCA Title 66, Chapter 27), while newer condominiums are governed by the Tennessee Condominium Act. HOAs organized as nonprofit corporations follow the Tennessee Nonprofit Corporation Act.
How HOA Rules Apply
Without a unified HOA statute, the authority of a Tennessee HOA to regulate Ring doorbells depends on its governing documents:
- Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), which specify property requirements and limitations
- Bylaws, outlining the association's operational rules
- Architectural guidelines, which often address exterior modifications and devices
If your community's CC&Rs or architectural guidelines address exterior devices, security cameras, or modifications, those rules determine whether and how you can install a Ring doorbell.
What HOAs Can Regulate
Tennessee HOAs that have adopted architectural guidelines may require:
- Approval from an architectural review committee before installation
- Specific placement, color, or size requirements for exterior devices
- Rules about camera orientation relative to common areas
- Removal of non-compliant devices
Practical Approach
Before installing a Ring doorbell in a Tennessee HOA community, review your CC&Rs and architectural guidelines. If your governing documents require approval for exterior modifications, submit a formal request before installation to avoid potential fines or enforcement actions.
Landlord and Tenant Rights
The Tennessee Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (TCA Title 66, Chapter 28) governs rental relationships but does not specifically address doorbell camera installation.
Tenant Installation Rights
Tenants in Tennessee can generally install a Ring doorbell if they:
- Obtain written permission from the landlord before making exterior modifications
- Agree to restore the property to its original condition upon move-out
- Ensure the camera does not record areas that violate other tenants' privacy
Under TCA 66-28-403, landlords may enter rental premises with proper notice. A Ring doorbell does not change this requirement, but footage from the device could document whether a landlord complied with notice obligations.
Landlord Installation
Landlords who install Ring doorbells on rental property should inform tenants about the presence of cameras. Exterior cameras aimed at common areas like entryways and parking lots are generally permissible. Cameras that capture areas where tenants have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as views through windows or toward private patios, could violate TCA 39-13-607.
Installing cameras inside rental units without explicit tenant consent violates Tennessee's privacy statutes.

Law Enforcement Access to Ring Footage
How police access Ring doorbell footage in Tennessee involves constitutional protections, state law, and Amazon's corporate policies.
Fourth Amendment Protections
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Tennessee courts recognize strong constitutional protections for the home and its curtilage. Law enforcement seeking Ring footage generally needs:
- A valid search warrant issued by a Tennessee court based on probable cause
- Homeowner consent to voluntarily share footage
- A subpoena or court order in certain circumstances
Amazon Ring's Evolving Policy
Amazon's approach to law enforcement access has shifted multiple times. In January 2024, Ring discontinued the "Request for Assistance" tool that allowed police to request footage through the Neighbors app. However, in 2025, Ring partnered with Axon to create new integrations allowing officers to request footage through Axon's evidence management system.
Tennessee homeowners retain the right to refuse voluntary requests for footage. Sharing is optional unless compelled by a warrant or court order.
Ring Footage as Court Evidence in Tennessee
Ring doorbell footage is admissible in Tennessee courts when it meets authentication requirements under Rule 901 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. The party offering the footage must establish that the video is genuine and accurately represents what it claims to show. Courts evaluate:
- Whether the footage was obtained legally
- Whether the recording system was functioning properly
- Whether the footage has been altered or tampered with
- Whether a proper chain of custody exists
Tennessee law enforcement agencies, including several local police departments, have previously partnered with Ring through the Neighbors app to access community-shared footage for investigations.
FTC Privacy Settlement
The FTC's 2023 settlement with Ring required the company to pay $5.8 million in consumer refunds and implement stronger privacy protections. The agency found that Ring employees had accessed customer videos without authorization and the company failed to prevent hackers from taking control of user cameras. The FTC distributed refunds to affected customers in April 2024.

Penalties for Illegal Recording in Tennessee
Tennessee imposes strict criminal penalties for recording violations, and violators can also face civil liability under federal law, making the consequences among the more severe in the United States.
Criminal Penalties
Wiretapping (TCA 39-13-602)
Violating the wiretapping provisions of TCA 39-13-601 is a Class D felony.
| Penalty | Details |
|---|---|
| Prison | 2 to 12 years |
| Fine | Up to $5,000 |
| Record | Felony conviction |
Unlawful Photography (TCA 39-13-605)
| Offense | Classification | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Violation of subsection (a)(1) or (a)(3) | Class E felony | 1 to 6 years prison, up to $3,000 fine |
| The same violation with dissemination of the image, a victim under 13, or a minor under 13 used to facilitate the offense | Class D felony | 2 to 12 years prison, up to $5,000 fine |
| Dissemination combined with a victim under 13 or a defendant in a position of trust | Class C felony | 3 to 15 years prison, up to $10,000 fine |
Public Chapter 474 (2025) set these classifications effective July 1, 2025 for offenses committed on or after that date, raising the dissemination and under-13 tier from a Class E to a Class D felony and the aggravated tier from a Class D to a Class C felony. Subsection (a)(2), which covers photographing an unclothed intimate area and then disseminating or threatening to disseminate the image, is graded under a separate subdivision that the 2025 act did not amend, so it is not covered by the rows above. A conviction under subsection (a)(1) or (a)(3) also requires the trial judge to order sex offender registration.
Observation Without Consent (TCA 39-13-607)
| Offense | Classification | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Observation without consent (adult victim) | Class A misdemeanor | Up to 11 months 29 days jail, up to $2,500 fine |
| Victim under 13 | Class E felony | 1 to 6 years prison, up to $3,000 fine |
Civil Liability
Tennessee repealed the state civil cause of action for wiretapping victims, formerly codified at TCA 39-13-603, effective May 28, 2024 under 2024 Tenn. Pub. Ch. 1045 (SB 2221), section 3. Victims of illegal interception can no longer sue for statutory damages, actual damages, or attorney's fees under Tennessee state law.
Federal law still provides a civil remedy. Under 18 U.S.C. section 2520, a victim of a federal Wiretap Act violation can sue in federal court for the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, plus actual damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees. Criminal liability under Tennessee law is unchanged; illegal interception remains a Class D felony under TCA 39-13-601 and 39-13-602.
A Ring doorbell that continuously records audio of a neighbor's private conversations could still generate substantial statutory damages exposure under the federal formula, even though Tennessee's own civil remedy no longer applies.
How to Use a Ring Doorbell Legally in Tennessee
Following these guidelines helps Tennessee residents operate Ring doorbells within the bounds of state law.
1. Position the camera carefully. Aim your Ring doorbell at your own property and public-facing areas. Avoid angles that capture through neighbors' windows or into private spaces where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
2. Consider disabling audio recording. Turning off audio in the Ring app eliminates exposure to the wiretapping statute entirely. This is the most conservative approach, particularly for cameras that may capture third-party conversations.
3. Post a visible notice. A sign near your Ring doorbell stating "Audio and Video Recording in Progress" helps establish visitor awareness. While not a legal guarantee under Tennessee law, it reduces the argument that recording was unauthorized.
4. Check your HOA rules. Review your CC&Rs and architectural guidelines before installing. If your community requires approval for exterior modifications, submit a formal request first.
5. Get landlord permission if renting. Tenants should obtain written approval before installing any exterior device on rental property.
6. Secure your Ring account. Enable two-factor authentication, use a strong unique password, and review shared access regularly. The FTC's 2023 findings highlighted security vulnerabilities that allowed unauthorized access to customer cameras.
7. Understand your rights with police. You are not legally required to share Ring footage with law enforcement without a warrant or court order. Sharing is voluntary unless compelled by legal process.
8. Know the civil liability exposure. Tennessee repealed its own civil action for wiretapping victims in 2024, but a federal civil claim under 18 U.S.C. section 2520 can still impose statutory damages of $100 per day or $10,000 (whichever is greater) for wiretapping violations, creating financial risk for improperly configured Ring doorbells that record private conversations.
More Tennessee Laws
Tennessee has additional laws covering related topics that affect residents:
- Tennessee Recording Laws cover the full scope of audio and video recording rules in the state.
- Tennessee Hit and Run Laws explain reporting requirements and penalties for leaving the scene of an accident.
- Tennessee Lemon Law outlines protections for consumers who purchase defective vehicles.
This article provides general legal information about Tennessee Ring doorbell laws as of April 2026. Laws and their interpretations can change. Consult an attorney licensed in Tennessee for advice specific to your situation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record audio with my Ring doorbell in Tennessee?
Tennessee follows one-party consent under TCA 39-13-601. If you are a participant in the conversation (for example, speaking through Ring's two-way talk feature), your consent satisfies the law. Recording conversations between third parties without any participant's consent is a Class D felony. Disabling audio in the Ring app eliminates this risk.
Is it legal to point my Ring doorbell at a neighbor's property in Tennessee?
You can record video of areas visible from public spaces, including a neighbor's front yard. Pointing your Ring doorbell to capture through a neighbor's windows or into areas where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy could violate TCA 39-13-605 (unlawful photography) or TCA 39-13-607 (observation without consent).
What are the penalties for illegal wiretapping with a Ring doorbell in Tennessee?
Illegal wiretapping under TCA 39-13-601 is a Class D felony carrying 2 to 12 years in prison and fines up to $5,000. Tennessee repealed its state civil action for wiretapping victims, formerly TCA 39-13-603, effective May 28, 2024. Victims can still pursue a federal civil claim under 18 U.S.C. section 2520 for statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or $10,000 (whichever is greater), plus actual damages and attorney fees.
Do police in Tennessee need a warrant to access my Ring footage?
Generally, yes. The Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant based on probable cause to compel access to Ring footage. Police can ask you to share footage voluntarily, but you have the right to refuse. Amazon requires a valid warrant or court order for law enforcement requests made directly to the company.
Can my Tennessee HOA ban Ring doorbells?
Tennessee does not have a comprehensive state HOA statute for single-family homes. Your HOA's authority to restrict Ring doorbells depends on its CC&Rs and architectural guidelines. If your governing documents require approval for exterior modifications, the HOA can enforce those requirements. Review your documents before installation.
Updates
Corrected the unlawful photography section to state the offense elements conjunctively, added the 2025 Public Chapter 474 intimate-area prongs including one that applies regardless of location, and clarified which subsections each penalty tier covers.
Updated the unlawful-photography penalty table to Tennessee's current felony grading (Class E base, Class D for dissemination or a victim under 13, Class C when both dissemination and a young victim or a position of trust are involved), effective July 1, 2025 under Public Chapter 474.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected this page to reflect that Tennessee repealed its state civil action for wiretapping victims (former TCA 39-13-603) effective May 28, 2024; a federal civil remedy under 18 U.S.C. section 2520 still applies, and Tennessee criminal penalties for illegal recording are unchanged.
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.
Tennessee Code Annotated
§ 39-13-601Wiretapping and electronic surveillance — Prohibited acts — Exceptions.In forcecited in 20 of our articles
(a)(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in §§ 39-13-601 — [former] 39-13-603 [repealed] and title 40, chapter 6, part 3, a person commits an offense who: (A) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at publications.tnsosfiles.com
Cited in 25 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Lawrence v. Lawrence held a parent may vicariously consent under Section 39-13-601 to recording a 2 1/2-year-old child's phone call with the other parent. State of Tennessee v. Henry Floyd Sanders noted that a body-wire recording made with one party's consent is lawful under the section's exceptions.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lawrence v. Lawrence (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2010, 360 S.W.3d 416)“…called upon to construe the term “consent” as it is used in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-601 to determine whether Mother had an “unr…”
- Harold Dean McDaniel v. Kimberly Ruth McDaniel (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2010)“…ourt: I have had an opportunity to look at T.C.A. 39-13-601(a)(1), (A) and (B), and…”
- State of Tennessee v. Henry Floyd Sanders (Tennessee Supreme Court 2014, 452 S.W.3d 300)✓Police recorded a front yard conversation in which a man admitted touching his ex-partner's daughter; the court upheld admission of the recording as a voluntary statement to a confidante and noted that this type of recording is sanctioned as lawful by 39-13-601(b)(4)-(5).
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Tennessee Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Tennessee Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Statutes and Penalties, Tennessee Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
§ 39-13-602Penalty for violations.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
A person who violates § 39-13-601(a) commits a Class D felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-05-21 · Read the full text in our law library
Also relied on in: Tennessee Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules, Tennessee Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, Tennessee AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
§ 39-13-605Unlawful photographing in violation of privacy.In forcecited in 10 of our articles
(a) It is an offense for a person to knowingly photograph, or cause to be photographed an individual, when the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without the prior effective consent of the individual, or in the case of a minor, without the prior effective consent of the minor's…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-05-21 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State of Tennessee v. David Eric Lambert (2020) reversed a conviction under the pre-2018 version of section 39-13-605 because a fully clothed shopper in public had no reasonable expectation of privacy. State of Tennessee v. Brandon Robert Vandenburg (2019) rejected a vagueness challenge to the same element.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State of Tennessee v. Thomas Whited (Tennessee Supreme Court 2016, 506 S.W.3d 416)✓A father hid a phone to video his twelve-year-old daughter and her friend undressing; the court noted the evidence would have supported unlawful photography under section 39-13-605, but charges were dropped because the statute excepts photographing a minor with parental consent.
- State of Tennessee v. David Eric Lambert (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee 2020)✓A man followed a fully clothed woman through a Walmart and aimed his phone at her, but no image was ever found; the court held section 39-13-605 was not satisfied because she had no reasonable expectation of privacy and no photograph existed to judge, and reversed the conviction.
- State of Tennessee v. Brandon Robert Vandenburg (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee 2019)✓A student photographed and filmed an unconscious, intoxicated woman as she was sexually assaulted in his dorm, then sent the files to a friend; the court upheld his felony conviction under section 39-13-605 and rejected his claim that the statute was unconstitutionally vague.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Tennessee Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Rights and Restrictions, Tennessee School Recording Laws: Student, Parent, and Teacher Rights, Tennessee Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules
§ 39-13-607Observation without consent.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
(a) It is an offense for a person to knowingly spy upon, observe or otherwise view an individual, when the individual is in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, without the prior effective consent of the individual, if the viewing: (1) Would offend or embarrass an ordinary…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Tennessee courts treat the defendant's own purpose of sexual arousal or gratification as an element. State of Tennessee v. Thomas Whited (2016) described that element in contrasting the statute with child-exploitation offenses, and State of Tennessee v. Ezekiel Abraham Schmaltz (2025) allowed proof of it by circumstantial evidence.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State of Tennessee v. Thomas Whited (Tennessee Supreme Court 2016, 506 S.W.3d 416)✓A father secretly recorded his 12-year-old daughter and her friend undressing. The court reversed his child-exploitation convictions; his unappealed Section 39-13-607 convictions stood, and it read that statute as expressly requiring the defendant's own sexual-arousal purpose.
- State of Tennessee v. Ezekiel Abraham Schmaltz (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee 2025)✓An uncle repeatedly pulled down a sleeping 11-year-old niece's pants and shone a phone flashlight at her exposed underwear; the court held that circumstantial evidence sufficed to prove the sexual-arousal purpose element of Section 39-13-607, but ordered the two counts merged.
- State of Tennessee v. David Allen Donton, Jr. (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee 2022)✓A man peered over a restroom stall at an 8-year-old girl in a Dollar General and pleaded guilty under Section 39-13-607; on appeal the court noted the statute's sexual-arousal purpose is an element that cannot double as enhancement factor (7), yet affirmed his confinement.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Tennessee Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide), Tennessee Video Recording Laws: What Is Legal and What Is Not
§ 39-13-603Civil actions — Injunctive relief — Damages — Defenses — Limitation of actions.Repealedcited in 11 of our articles
(a) Except as provided in § 39-13-601(b)(4), any aggrieved person whose wire, oral or electronic communication is intentionally intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of § 39-13-601 or title 40, chapter 6, part 3 may in a civil action recover from the person or entity that engaged in that…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-06 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at publications.tnsosfiles.com
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2018
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Robinson v. Fulliton (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2003, 140 S.W.3d 312)“…il damages provision of the Tennessee wiretapping statutes, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-603. The trial court, sitting without a jur…”
- Montgomery v. Montgomery (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2005, 181 S.W.3d 720)“…0), whichever is greater” plus attorney fees and costs. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-603(a)(1). On appeal, Defendant argues that…”
- State of Tennessee v. William Keith Paulson, alias (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee 2009)“…ted.” Violation of subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. T.C.A. § 39-13-603(a)(3). As previously noted, subsection…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Tennessee Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and Provider Rules, Tennessee Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights
§ 66-28-403Access by landlord.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) The tenant shall not unreasonably withhold consent to the landlord to enter onto the premises, including entering into the dwelling unit, in order to inspect the premises, make necessary or agreed repairs, decorations, alterations, or improvements, supply necessary or agreed services, or…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-05-21 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2013
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Hunter Lee Williams Nicholas Edward George and Geoffrey Hillman Leek (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2003, 354 F.3d 497)“…rrence or set of circumstances demanding immediate action.” Tenn.Code Ann. § 66-28-403(b). Just as we conclude that the possib…”
- United States v. Felix Booker (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2013, 728 F.3d 535)“…rrence or set of circumstances demanding immediate action.” Tenn.Code Ann. § 66-28-403(b). The officers’ mere suspicion that a…”
- United States v. Hunter Lee Williams (02-5001) Nicholas Edward George (02-5002) and Geoffrey Hillman Leek (02-5003) (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2003, 342 F.3d 430)“…rrence or set of circumstances demanding immediate action.” Tenn.Code Ann. § 66-28-403(b). Just as we conclude that the possib…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 40-35-111Authorized terms of imprisonment and fines for felonies and misdemeanors.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
(a) A sentence for a felony is a determinate sentence. (b) The authorized terms of imprisonment and fines for felonies are: (1) Class A felony, not less than fifteen (15) nor more than sixty (60) years.…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-05-21 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 257 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Moss (Tennessee Supreme Court 1986, 727 S.W.2d 229)“…nooga “to gratify [his] desire for pleasure or excitement,” T.C.A. § 40-35-111(7), and thus we decline to apply this f…”
- State v. Butler (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee 1994, 900 S.W.2d 305)“…led 1989) and Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-114(1) (1990). . Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-111(4) (1982) (repealed 1989) and Tenn.Code…”
- State v. Rhoden (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee 1987, 739 S.W.2d 6)“…as a previous history of criminal convictions and behavior. T.C.A. § 40-35-111(1). The appellant has been convicted of…”
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
- TCA 39-13-601 - Wiretapping and electronic surveillance - Prohibited acts - Exceptions(law.justia.com)
- TCA 39-13-602 - Penalty for violations(law.justia.com)
- 2024 Tenn. Pub. Ch. 1045 (SB 2221), § 3 — repealed Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-603 (civil action for interception) effective May 28, 2024(publications.tnsosfiles.com).gov
- TCA 39-13-605 - Unlawful photography(law.justia.com)
- TCA 39-13-607 - Observation without consent(law.justia.com)
- TCA 40-35-111 - Authorized terms of imprisonment and fines(law.justia.com)
- TCA Title 66, Chapter 28 - Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act(law.justia.com)
- TCA 66-28-403 - Access by landlord(law.justia.com)
- FTC - Ring employees illegally surveilled customers, failed to stop hackers(ftc.gov).gov
- FTC Sends Refunds to Ring Customers (2024)(ftc.gov).gov
- FTC Blog - Ring lax practices led to privacy and security violations(ftc.gov).gov
- Tennessee General Assembly - SB2221 Wiretapping legislation(wapp.capitol.tn.gov).gov
- 2025 Tenn. Pub. Ch. 474 (HB 99) - rewrote Tenn. Code Ann. 39-13-605 (unlawful photography) offense elements and penalty grading, effective July 1, 2025(publications.tnsosfiles.com)