Maryland
Maryland Surveillance Camera Laws: What You Need to Know (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 9 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Maryland permits video-only surveillance cameras on private property but requires all-party consent for any audio recording under Md. Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code Section 10-402. Unauthorized audio capture is a felony carrying up to five years in prison. Visual surveillance conducted with prurient intent violates Md. Criminal Law Section 3-902, and placing a camera on the real property where a private residence is located in order to secretly observe someone inside violates Section 3-903.
Last verified: March 2026. This page reflects current Maryland Courts & Judicial Proceedings Code Section 10-402 and Maryland Criminal Law Sections 3-901 through 3-903.
Table of Contents
- Overview of Maryland Surveillance Camera Laws
- Audio Recording and All-Party Consent
- Home Security Cameras
- Workplace Surveillance
- Hidden Cameras and Voyeurism Laws
- Nanny Cam Laws in Maryland
- Neighbor Camera Disputes
- Comparison With New York Labor Law
- Penalties for Violations
- Recent Legislative Updates
- Prince George's County Camera Requirements
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Sources and References
Overview of Maryland Surveillance Camera Laws
Maryland takes a strong stance on protecting individual privacy when it comes to surveillance and recording. The state regulates surveillance cameras through two primary areas of law: the Maryland Wiretap Act (Courts & Judicial Proceedings Code Section 10-402) and the Surveillance and Privacy provisions of the Criminal Law Article (Sections 3-901 through 3-903).
Video recording on your own property is generally permitted, as long as cameras do not capture areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, any audio recording triggers Maryland's strict all-party consent requirement, which carries felony penalties for violations.
Understanding the distinction between video-only recording and audio recording is critical for Maryland residents. Installing a security camera that captures video of your front porch is lawful. Adding a microphone to that same camera without informing everyone who might be recorded could be a felony.
Primary Statutes:
- Md. Courts & Judicial Proceedings Code Section 10-402 (Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance)
- Md. Criminal Law Section 3-901 (Visual Surveillance Definitions)
- Md. Criminal Law Section 3-902 (Visual Surveillance with Prurient Intent)
- Md. Criminal Law Section 3-903 (Camera Surveillance at Private Residences)
Audio Recording and All-Party Consent
Maryland is one of roughly a dozen states that require all-party consent for audio recording. Under Md. Courts & Judicial Proceedings Code Section 10-402, it is unlawful for any person to willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication without the consent of all parties involved.
This means that if your surveillance camera records audio, every person whose voice might be captured must give prior consent. Simply posting a sign that says "audio recording in progress" may help establish implied consent in some situations, but explicit consent is always the safest approach.
What Counts as an "Oral Communication"
Under Maryland law, an "oral communication" is any communication uttered by a person who has a reasonable expectation that the communication is not being intercepted. This applies to in-person conversations, phone calls, and other spoken exchanges.
If a person is speaking in a public place where they should reasonably expect to be overheard, the expectation of privacy may be reduced. However, Maryland courts have historically interpreted the law strictly in favor of requiring consent.
Exceptions to the All-Party Consent Rule
There are limited exceptions to the consent requirement:
- Law enforcement: Officers may intercept communications with proper authorization, such as a court order.
- One party is law enforcement: When an investigative or law enforcement officer is a party to the communication, or one party has given prior consent and the interception is related to law enforcement duties.
- Emergency situations: Certain emergency intercepts may be permitted under narrow circumstances defined in the statute.
It is important to note that Maryland does not have a general "one-party consent" exception for private citizens. You cannot secretly record a conversation even if you are a participant without the other party's consent.
Home Security Cameras
Video-Only Cameras
Maryland law permits homeowners to install video-only security cameras on their own property. You can record your front yard, driveway, porch, backyard, and other areas of your home as long as cameras are not pointed into areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as bathrooms, bedrooms (if used by guests or tenants), or changing areas.
There is no state-level requirement to post signs notifying visitors that video recording is taking place on your own residential property. However, posting visible signage is considered a best practice for several reasons:
- It may deter criminal activity.
- It helps establish that visitors are aware of the recording.
- It can reduce potential neighbor disputes.
Cameras With Audio
If your home security camera has a microphone or audio recording capability, Maryland's all-party consent law applies. Popular doorbell cameras such as Ring and Nest often have built-in microphones that record audio by default.
To comply with Maryland law, homeowners using cameras with audio should:
- Disable audio recording entirely, or
- Post clear signage stating that audio and video recording is in progress, so visitors are on notice, or
- Obtain explicit consent from anyone whose conversations may be recorded
Failing to address the audio component of a security camera system could expose a homeowner to felony wiretapping charges under Section 10-402.
Workplace Surveillance
Maryland does not have a standalone workplace surveillance statute like New York Labor Law Section 203-c. Instead, workplace camera use is governed by the same general privacy and wiretapping laws that apply to all Maryland residents.
Video Surveillance at Work
Employers may install video surveillance cameras in the workplace for legitimate business purposes, including:
- Preventing theft and fraud
- Monitoring safety compliance
- Protecting company assets
Cameras must not be placed in areas where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes restrooms, locker rooms, break rooms used for changing, nursing rooms, and similar private spaces. Md. Criminal Law Section 3-901 applies narrowly: it prohibits visual surveillance without consent only in a dressing room or restroom of a retail store. Installing a camera in an employee restroom, locker room, or changing area with prurient intent could instead violate Md. Criminal Law Section 3-902.
Audio Recording at Work
Maryland's all-party consent law applies fully in the workplace. Employers cannot record employee conversations, whether in person or on the telephone, without the prior consent of all parties participating in the conversation.
For telephone monitoring, Maryland permits employers to listen to business-related calls, but once an employer determines a call is personal, monitoring must stop immediately.
Best Practices for Employers
While Maryland does not require written notice of video surveillance the way New York does, employers should:
- Adopt a clear surveillance policy and distribute it to all employees
- Specify which areas are monitored and the business purpose
- Confirm that audio recording is either disabled or that all parties have consented
- Include the surveillance policy in employee handbooks
Hidden Cameras and Voyeurism Laws
Maryland has two specific statutes addressing hidden cameras and voyeurism.
Visual Surveillance With Prurient Intent (Section 3-902)
Under Md. Criminal Law Section 3-902, a person may not conduct visual surveillance with prurient intent of an individual in a private place without that individual's consent. The statute also prohibits using a camera to capture the "private area" of an individual without consent, even in a public place, if a reasonable person would believe that area would not be visible to the public.
Key definitions under this statute:
- "Visual surveillance" means the deliberate, surreptitious observation of an individual by any means, including direct sight, mirrors, or cameras. It does not include a casual, momentary, or unintentional observation.
- "Private area of an individual" means the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast.
- "Private place" is defined narrowly. It means a room in which a person can reasonably be expected to fully or partially disrobe and has a reasonable expectation of privacy, in an office, business or store, a recreational facility, a restaurant or tavern, a hotel or motel or other lodging facility, a theater or sports arena, a school or other educational institution, a bank or other financial institution, a family child care home, a residence, or another place of private or public use or accommodation. The definition expressly includes a tanning room, dressing room, bedroom, or restroom. An open area such as a yard is not a "private place" under this section.
Penalties for Section 3-902 violations:
- Misdemeanor: Up to 1 year imprisonment and/or a $2,500 fine, regardless of the victim's age
The statute also provides a civil cause of action for victims, allowing them to sue the offender for damages.
Camera Surveillance at Private Residences (Section 3-903)
Under Md. Criminal Law Section 3-903, a person may not place a camera on real property where a private residence is located to conduct deliberate surreptitious observation of an individual inside the private residence.
Where the camera sits is the limit of this section. Subsection (b)(7) provides that Section 3-903 does not apply to filming of a private residence through use of a camera that is not located on the real property where the private residence is located. A camera mounted somewhere other than that property therefore falls outside this statute no matter which way it points.
The term "camera" under this section includes any electronic device that can be used surreptitiously to observe an individual.
Exceptions to Section 3-903: The statute lists eight situations it does not apply to:
- An adult resident of the private residence where the camera is placed
- A person who places a camera on real property without the intent to conduct deliberate surreptitious observation of an individual inside the private residence
- A person who has obtained consent from an adult resident or their legal guardian
- Any otherwise lawful camera observation by a law enforcement officer performing official duties
- Filming by or for print or broadcast media using a camera that is not secreted from view
- Any part of a private residence used for business purposes, including a family child care home
- Filming of a private residence through use of a camera that is not located on the real property where the private residence is located
- Otherwise lawful camera observation of the common area of multiunit family dwellings by a person licensed under Title 13 or Title 19 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article, acting within the scope of that occupation
Important: Owning the property is not a defense. A landlord who places hidden cameras inside a tenant's apartment can be prosecuted even though they own the building.
Penalty: Misdemeanor, up to 1 year imprisonment and/or a $2,500 fine, plus a civil cause of action for the person who was observed.
Nanny Cam Laws in Maryland
Nanny cams are a common tool for parents who want to monitor the care their children receive. In Maryland, the legality depends on whether the camera records audio.
Video-Only Nanny Cams
Video-only nanny cams are legal in Maryland without any requirement to disclose them to the caregiver. You may place hidden video cameras in common areas of your home such as the living room, kitchen, playroom, or nursery.
However, you must not place cameras in areas where the caregiver has a reasonable expectation of privacy:
- Bathroom used by the caregiver
- Bedroom designated for a live-in nanny
- Changing areas
Nanny Cams With Audio
If your nanny cam records audio, Maryland law requires you to inform the caregiver and obtain their consent. Because Maryland is an all-party consent state, recording your nanny's conversations without consent is a felony.
Best practice: Put it in writing. Include a clause in the caregiver's employment agreement stating that audio and video recording takes place in specified areas of the home. Have the caregiver sign acknowledging they understand and consent.
What Nanny Cam Footage Can Be Used For
If you capture concerning behavior on a nanny cam, the footage may be used:
- As evidence in a criminal investigation (for abuse or neglect)
- In civil proceedings related to the caregiver's employment
- As a basis for terminating the caregiver
However, if the footage was obtained in violation of Maryland's wiretapping law (for example, it includes audio recorded without consent), it may be inadmissible in court and could expose you to criminal liability.
Neighbor Camera Disputes
Security cameras pointed toward a neighbor's property are a growing source of conflict. Maryland's camera statutes reach these disputes far less often than people expect, so it is worth being precise about what the law actually covers.
When a Neighbor's Camera Is Legal
A neighbor's security camera is generally legal if it:
- Is installed on their own property
- Captures their own yard, driveway, or entryways
- Incidentally captures portions of your property that are visible from a public vantage point (such as a shared driveway or front yard visible from the street)
Section 3-903 does not apply to a camera on the neighbor's own lot. That section prohibits placing a camera on the real property where a private residence is located to secretly observe someone inside that residence, and subsection (b)(7) states that the section does not apply to filming of a private residence using a camera that is not located on that property. A camera mounted on your neighbor's own house or fence is therefore outside Section 3-903 even if it is aimed straight at your windows.
When a Neighbor's Camera May Be Illegal
Other Maryland law can still apply. A neighbor's camera could be unlawful if:
- It records audio of your private conversations without consent, which is the felony wiretap violation under Section 10-402
- It is used with prurient intent to observe someone in a bedroom, bathroom, dressing room, or another room where a person can reasonably be expected to disrobe, which can violate Section 3-902
- It was placed on your own property, for example attached to your house or fence, to observe people inside your home, which is what Section 3-903 prohibits
- It is part of a course of conduct meant to harass, intimidate, or stalk you, which is handled by Maryland's harassment and stalking laws rather than by the camera statutes
Steps to Address a Neighbor's Camera
If you believe a neighbor's camera is unlawfully surveilling you:
- Talk to your neighbor and explain your concerns. Many disputes stem from camera placement that the neighbor did not realize was intrusive.
- Document the camera's position and what it appears to capture, including where the camera itself is mounted, since that placement decides whether Section 3-903 applies at all.
- Contact local law enforcement if you believe the camera is being used for harassment or to record your conversations.
- Consult an attorney about potential remedies. Section 3-902 and the wiretap statute each create a civil cause of action, and nuisance or harassment claims may be available where the camera statutes do not reach.
- Consider privacy solutions such as fencing, window treatments, or strategic landscaping.
Comparison With New York Labor Law
Maryland and New York take different approaches to workplace surveillance regulation.
New York Labor Law Section 203-c
New York Labor Law Section 203-c specifically addresses employer video surveillance. Key provisions include:
- Prohibited areas: No employer may make video recordings of employees in restrooms, locker rooms, or rooms designated for changing clothes (unless authorized by court order).
- Inadmissible evidence: Any video recording made in violation of Section 203-c cannot be used by the employer for any purpose.
- Civil remedies: Courts may award damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and injunctive relief to employees who prevail in lawsuits under this section.
- Law enforcement exception: The statute does not apply to law enforcement personnel engaged in authorized duties.
How Maryland Differs
Maryland does not have a dedicated workplace surveillance statute. Instead:
| Feature | Maryland | New York |
|---|---|---|
| Dedicated workplace camera law | No | Yes (Labor Law Section 203-c) |
| Audio recording consent | All-party consent required | One-party consent |
| Prohibited camera locations | Privacy areas (general law) | Restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms (specific) |
| Employee notice required | No specific requirement | No specific requirement |
| Civil remedies for employees | General privacy statutes | Specific statutory damages |
| Criminal penalties for audio violations | Felony (up to 5 years, $10,000 fine) | Misdemeanor eavesdropping (Penal Law Section 250.05) |
The most significant practical difference is in audio recording. Maryland's all-party consent requirement makes it far riskier for employers to use cameras with microphones. In New York, a one-party consent state, an employer who is a party to a conversation may record it without the other party's knowledge.
Penalties for Violations
Maryland imposes serious penalties for surveillance-related offenses. The severity depends on which statute is violated.
Wiretapping (Section 10-402)
Violating Maryland's wiretapping law by recording audio without all-party consent is classified as a felony.
- Imprisonment: Up to 5 years
- Fine: Up to $10,000
- Civil liability: Victims may bring a civil lawsuit for damages, attorney's fees, and litigation costs
This applies to security cameras with audio, phone recording, and any other interception of oral or electronic communications.
Visual Surveillance With Prurient Intent (Section 3-902)
- Misdemeanor: Up to 1 year imprisonment and/or $2,500 fine, with the same penalty regardless of the victim's age
- Civil cause of action available to victims
Camera Surveillance at Private Residences (Section 3-903)
- Misdemeanor: Up to 1 year imprisonment and/or $2,500 fine
- Civil cause of action available to victims
- No ownership defense: Owning the property does not protect against prosecution
Penalty Summary Table
| Offense | Classification | Max Imprisonment | Max Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wiretapping / unauthorized audio recording (Section 10-402) | Felony | 5 years | $10,000 |
| Visual surveillance with prurient intent (Section 3-902) | Misdemeanor | 1 year | $2,500 |
| Camera placed on the residence's property to observe inside (Section 3-903) | Misdemeanor | 1 year | $2,500 |
Recent Legislative Updates
Maryland's legislature has been actively considering updates to its surveillance and wiretapping laws to reflect modern technology.
Senate Bill 61 (2025 Session)
Senate Bill 61 proposed two new exceptions to the wiretapping prohibition under Section 10-402:
- Public recording exception: It would have been lawful for a person to use a cellphone or other device to intercept an oral communication in public if the speaker should reasonably anticipate being overheard.
- Security camera exception: It would have been lawful for a person to use a security camera installed on property they own, lease, or control to intercept oral communications on that property.
This bill was introduced in January 2025 but did not pass during the 2025 session. As of March 2026, Maryland's all-party consent requirement for audio recording remains fully in effect.
House Bill 130 / Senate Bill 38 (2025 Session)
House Bill 130 and Senate Bill 38 proposed reclassifying wiretapping violations from a felony to a misdemeanor. These bills had broad support from the Maryland State's Attorneys Association, the Office of the Public Defender, and the Maryland State Bar Association. The proposed effective date was October 1, 2025.
Residents should check the Maryland General Assembly website for the latest status of these bills and any new legislation affecting surveillance camera laws.
Prince George's County Camera Requirements
Prince George's County enacted local legislation (CB-029-2023) requiring security cameras in certain multi-family residential properties.
Who Must Comply
The law applies to:
- Apartment buildings with more than 100 units
- Residential complexes and condominiums with more than 100 units
- Co-ops with more than 100 units
- Age 55+ senior residences exceeding 100 units
Requirements
Property owners must:
- Install and maintain 24-hour security cameras at each entry and exit point
- Provide camera coverage of parking lots and garages
- Retain footage for a minimum of 30 days
- Garden-style apartments must install at least one 24-hour camera to cover multiple entrances and exits per building
Compliance and Enforcement
- The compliance deadline was June 1, 2025
- Older properties were granted up to one year for installation
- Failure to maintain or repair a broken camera may result in a $500 fine
- A $5,000 rebate is available to assist with installation costs
This local law is separate from Maryland's state-level surveillance statutes and applies only within Prince George's County. Maryland Criminal Law Section 3-903(b)(8) separately exempts otherwise lawful camera observation of the common areas of multiunit family dwellings by a person licensed under Title 13 or Title 19 of the Business Occupations and Professions Article.
Related Maryland Camera and Privacy Laws
- Maryland Recording Laws covers the consent rule that governs camera audio in Maryland.
- Maryland Security Camera Recording Rules explains the recording-law side of camera use.
- Maryland Biometric Privacy Laws addresses facial recognition and biometric data.
- Maryland Ring Doorbell Laws covers video doorbell rules in Maryland.
Common Camera Questions
These national guides answer the most common surveillance camera questions:
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I install a security camera on my property in Maryland without telling anyone?
Yes, you can install a video-only security camera on your own property without notifying anyone. Maryland law permits video recording in areas where people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as your front porch, driveway, or yard. However, if the camera also records audio, you must inform and obtain consent from all parties whose conversations may be captured, because Maryland is an all-party consent state under Md. Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code Section 10-402.
Is it legal to use a nanny cam in Maryland?
Video-only nanny cams are legal in Maryland and do not require disclosure to the caregiver. You can place hidden video cameras in common areas like the living room, kitchen, or nursery. However, you must not place cameras in private areas such as bathrooms or a live-in nanny's bedroom. If the nanny cam records audio, you must obtain the caregiver's consent. Recording audio without consent is a felony under Maryland law, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Can my neighbor point a security camera at my house in Maryland?
Maryland's residential camera statute does not prohibit it. Md. Criminal Law Section 3-903 reaches only a camera placed on the real property where a private residence is located, and subsection (b)(7) states that the section does not apply to filming of a private residence using a camera that is not located on that property. A camera mounted on your neighbor's own house or fence is therefore outside Section 3-903 even if it is aimed at your windows. Other law can still apply: recording your conversations without consent violates the wiretap statute at Section 10-402, and observing someone with prurient intent in a bedroom, bathroom, or similar room can violate Section 3-902. Document the camera's position and where it is mounted, talk to your neighbor, and consult an attorney about harassment or nuisance remedies if the conduct continues.
What happens if my employer records audio in the workplace without my consent in Maryland?
If your employer records audio of your conversations without the consent of all parties, the employer may be committing a felony under Md. Courts and Judicial Proceedings Code Section 10-402. Penalties include up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. You may also have a civil cause of action for damages. Maryland employers may use video-only surveillance in non-private areas for legitimate business purposes, but audio recording requires all-party consent.
Are Ring doorbells and similar smart cameras legal in Maryland?
Ring doorbells and similar smart cameras are legal for video recording in Maryland. However, many of these devices record audio by default. Because Maryland requires all-party consent for audio recording, homeowners should either disable the audio recording feature or post clear signage notifying visitors that audio and video recording is in progress. Failing to address the audio component could result in felony wiretapping charges under Section 10-402.
Updates
Corrected the treatment of Md. Criminal Law Section 3-903: the statute covers only a camera placed on the property where the residence sits and expressly does not apply to a neighbor camera located off that property, and the misquoted Section 3-902 definition of "private place" was replaced with the statutory text.
Session-qualified the two 2025 bill links so they resolve to the correct legislation.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected two Maryland errors: Section 3-901's 'private place' definition is limited to a dressing room or restroom in a retail store (not any workplace restroom or locker room), and removed a fabricated enhanced penalty for minor victims under Section 3-902, which carries only a single misdemeanor tier.
Corrected the penalty for visual surveillance with prurient intent under Md. Criminal Law 3-902: the statute makes it a misdemeanor with up to 1 year and a $2,500 fine, not 5 years.
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.
Maryland Code, Criminal Law Article
§ 3-902In forcecited in 6 of our articles
§3–902. (a) (1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated. (2) “Camera” includes any electronic device that can be used surreptitiously to observe an individual. (3) “Female breast” means a portion of the female breast below the top of the areola. (4) “Private area of an individual” means the naked or undergarment–clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an individual. (5) (i) “Private place” means a room in which a person can reasonably be expected to fully or partially disrobe and has a reasonable expectation of privacy, in: 1. an office, business, or store; 2. a recreational facility; 3. a restaurant or tavern; 4. a hotel, motel, or other lodging facility; 5. a theater or sports arena; 6. a school or other educational institution; 7. a bank or other financial institution; 8. any part of a family child care home used for the care and custody of a child; 9. a residence; or 10. another place of private or public use or accommodation. (ii) “Private place” includes a tanning room, dressing room, bedroom, or restroom. (6) (i) “Visual surveillance” means the deliberate, surreptitious observation of an individual by any means.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Watkins (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2026)“…nn. tit. 17-A, § 511;1,3 Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-901;3 Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-902;2,3 Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 6-408;1…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maryland Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, Maryland Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026, Maryland Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections (2026)
§ 3-903In forcecited in 9 of our articles
§3–903. (a) In this section, “camera” includes any electronic device that can be used surreptitiously to observe an individual. (b) This section does not apply to: (1) an adult resident of the private residence where a camera is placed; (2) a person who places or procures another to place a camera on real property without the intent to conduct deliberate surreptitious observation of an individual inside the private residence; (3) a person who has obtained the consent of an adult resident, or the adult resident’s legal guardian, to place a camera on real property to conduct deliberate surreptitious observation of an individual inside the private residence; (4) any otherwise lawful observation with a camera conducted by a law enforcement officer while performing official duties; (5) filming conducted by a person by or for the print or broadcast media through use of a camera that is not secreted from view; (6) any part of a private residence used for business purposes, including any part of a private residence used as a family child care home for the care and custody of a child; (7) filming of a private residence by a person through use of a camera that is not located on the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lancaster v. Baltimore County Maryland (District Court, D. Maryland 2021)“…t VII); and Violation of Maryland Camera Surveillance Act, Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-903 (Count VIII). (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 231–46).…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maryland Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Audio, and Privacy (2026), Maryland Video Recording Laws: Surveillance Rules and Privacy Limits (2026), Maryland Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent (2026)
§ 3-901In forcecited in 5 of our articles
§3–901. (a) (1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated. (2) “Private place” means a dressing room or rest room in a retail store. (3) “Visual surveillance” means surveillance by: (i) direct sight; (ii) the use of mirrors; (iii) the use of cameras; or (iv) the use of an electronic device that can be used surreptitiously to observe an individual. (b) This section does not apply to any otherwise lawful surveillance conducted by a law enforcement officer while performing official duties. (c) A person may not conduct or procure another to conduct visual surveillance of an individual in a private place without the consent of that individual. (d) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 30 days or a fine not exceeding $1,000 or both. (e) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the defendant owns the premises where the private place is located. (f) (1) An individual who was under visual surveillance in violation of this section has a civil cause of action against any person who conducted or procured a person to conduct the visual surveillance.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- 110OAG40 (Maryland Attorney General Reports 2025)“…her statutes impose restrictions on video surveillance. See Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-901(c) (prohibiting “visual surveillance,”…”
- Maryland Attorney General Opinion 110OAG40 (Maryland Attorney General Reports 2025)“…her statutes impose restrictions on video surveillance. See Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-901(c) (prohibiting “visual surveillance,”…”
- United States v. Watkins (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2026)“…at. Ann. § 14:284; Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 511;1,3 Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-901;3 Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-902;2,3…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maryland Employee Monitoring Laws: Passwords, Cameras & GPS
Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article
§ 10-402In forcecited in 26 of our articles
§10–402. (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to: (1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (2) Willfully disclose, or endeavor to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle; or (3) Willfully use, or endeavor to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subtitle. (b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 12 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Applying section 10-402, Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. (1995) held that liability under the Maryland Wiretap Act requires proof the defendant acted willfully, an intentional violation or reckless disregard of a known legal duty; an employee's failure to check for a court order was only a jury factor on willfulness.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 1995, 104 Md. App. 1)✓Police hid a tape recorder on an officer's headquarters phone line with a phone company employee's help and no court order; the court held a section 10-402(a) claim requires proof of willful interception, and failing to ask about a court order went only to willfulness.
- Maryland Attorney General Opinion 110OAG60 (Maryland Attorney General Reports 2025)“…or wire communications without the consent of all parties. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402(a). However, the Wiretap Act contains e…”
- Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A. (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1999, 191 F.3d 463)“…1992); Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 15, §§ 710, 711 (West 1998); Md.Code Ann., Cts & Jud. Proc. § 10-402 (1998); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 272,…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026), Maryland Audio Recording Laws: Two-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Md. Courts & Judicial Proceedings Code Section 10-402 - Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Criminal Law Section 3-901 - Surveillance Definitions(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Criminal Law Section 3-902 - Visual Surveillance With Prurient Intent(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Md. Criminal Law Section 3-903 - Camera Surveillance(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Senate Bill 61 Fiscal Note - 2025 Session(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- House Bill 130 - 2025 Session(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Senate Bill 38 - 2025 Session(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- New York Labor Law Section 203-c - Employee Privacy Protection(nysenate.gov).gov
- Maryland DoIT - Communication Recordings Policy(doit.maryland.gov).gov