Missouri
Missouri Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
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. · 13 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Missouri has no single surveillance camera statute. Home security cameras are legal on your own property, and RSMo 565.252 makes it a crime to create an image of a person who is fully or partially nude in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or to film under or through the clothing someone is wearing. For audio, Missouri's wiretap chapter is built around wire communications such as phone calls, and RSMo 542.402 lets a party to the communication record it.
Overview of Missouri Surveillance Camera Laws
Missouri does not have a single comprehensive surveillance camera statute. Instead, several laws work together to regulate where and how cameras, recording devices, and monitoring equipment can be used throughout the state. The key statutes include RSMo 565.252 (invasion of privacy), RSMo 542.402 (wiretapping and eavesdropping), RSMo 542.525 (government surveillance cameras on private property), and RSMo 198.610 through 198.632 (electronic monitoring in long-term care facilities).
A recurring theme across these laws is the idea of a "reasonable expectation of privacy," but that phrase does not by itself turn recording into a crime in Missouri. Surveillance cameras are generally legal in areas where people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as public streets, front porches, and common areas of businesses. RSMo 565.252 then adds a criminal prohibition in two narrow situations: creating an image of a person who is fully or partially nude in a place where they expect privacy, and creating an image under or through a person's clothing. Recording other people raises separate questions in every state.
Understanding these laws is essential for homeowners installing security systems, employers setting up workplace monitoring, and anyone who wants to protect their own privacy rights in the Show-Me State.
Home Security Camera Laws in Missouri
Missouri law permits homeowners to install security cameras on their own property for purposes such as deterring crime, monitoring deliveries, and keeping an eye on their home while away. There is no state law requiring homeowners to register security cameras or obtain a permit before installation.
Where You Can Place Home Security Cameras
You can legally place cameras in the following areas of your property:
- Front door and porch areas for monitoring visitors and package deliveries
- Driveways and garages to record vehicle activity
- Backyards to monitor your own property
- Common living areas inside your home, such as living rooms and kitchens
- Exterior walls aimed at your own property boundaries
While your cameras may incidentally capture portions of a neighbor's property, public sidewalks, or streets, this is generally considered legal because those areas are visible from public vantage points and carry no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Where Home Security Cameras Are Restricted
The criminal restriction is narrower than most homeowners assume. Under RSMo 565.252, it is an offense to knowingly create an image of another person, without consent, while that person is in a state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It is a separate offense to create an image under or through the clothing a person is wearing in order to view their body or undergarments.
Pointing a camera at a neighbor's private area is not by itself a violation of that statute when nobody is filmed undressed. It can still support a civil invasion of privacy claim, and a camera used as part of a course of conduct directed at a specific person can support a harassment or stalking complaint. As a practical matter, you should never aim cameras:
- Directly into a neighbor's bedroom or bathroom windows
- At any location specifically intended to capture someone in a state of undress
- Into a neighbor's fenced yard or living space in a way that serves no security purpose on your own property
Audio Recording With Home Cameras
Many modern security cameras include microphone capabilities. Missouri is usually described as a one-party consent state, and that description comes from RSMo 542.402. Its subsection 2(3) permits a person not acting under law to intercept a wire communication where that person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties has given prior consent. If you are a party to a recorded phone call, your own consent satisfies that provision.
The chapter is narrower than the shorthand suggests. RSMo 542.400 defines "intercept" as the aural acquisition of the contents of a wire communication, and defines an "electronic, mechanical, or other device" as a device that can be used to intercept a wire communication. The only route the criminal statute offers for spoken in-person conversation is RSMo 542.402.1(2), which reaches a device used to intercept an oral communication only when that device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission. A camera microphone that simply records ambient conversation does not clearly fall within that language.
That does not make outdoor audio recording safe. Recording a neighbor's private conversation can support a civil invasion of privacy claim and can be evidence in a harassment case, and federal wiretap law is a separate body of rules. The cautious approach for outdoor security cameras is to disable audio recording or limit it to areas where you are typically present.
Neighbor Disputes Over Security Cameras in Missouri
Security cameras pointed toward a neighbor's property are a frequent source of conflict. Missouri law balances a homeowner's right to protect their property against a neighbor's right to privacy.
When a Neighbor's Camera Is Legal
A neighbor's camera is generally legal when:
- It is mounted on their own property
- It primarily monitors their own property boundaries, driveway, or entrance
- Any view of your property is incidental rather than the primary focus
- It does not record audio of your private conversations
When a Neighbor's Camera May Be Illegal
A neighbor's camera can cross a legal line when:
- It is used to create an image of you or a household member in a state of full or partial nudity in a place where you expect privacy, which is invasion of privacy under RSMo 565.252
- It is deliberately aimed to record through your bedroom or bathroom windows
- It is being used for harassment or stalking purposes
- It is part of a pattern of intrusion that supports a civil invasion of privacy claim
A camera that merely takes in part of your fenced backyard is not, on its own, a violation of RSMo 565.252, because that statute requires either nudity or an image made under or through clothing. In that situation your realistic options are civil rather than criminal.
If you believe a neighbor's camera is violating your privacy, you have several options. You can speak directly with your neighbor to resolve the situation. If that does not work, you can contact local law enforcement to report a potential invasion of privacy under RSMo 565.252. You can also consult with a private attorney about filing a civil invasion of privacy claim.
HOA Camera Restrictions
If you live in a community governed by a homeowners association (HOA), your HOA's covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) may include additional rules about security camera placement. Some HOAs require architectural review committee approval before installing exterior cameras. Others may restrict camera placement to certain areas or require that cameras not be visible from the street. Always review your community's governing documents before installing cameras.
Hidden Cameras and Voyeurism Laws in Missouri
Missouri has specific criminal penalties for using cameras or recording devices to violate someone's privacy. The primary statute is RSMo 565.252, which defines the offense of invasion of privacy.
What Constitutes Invasion of Privacy
Under RSMo 565.252, a person commits the offense of invasion of privacy if they knowingly:
- Photograph, film, videotape, produce, or otherwise create 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
- Photograph, film, videotape, produce, or otherwise create an image of another person under or through the clothing worn by that person for the purpose of viewing the body or undergarments of that person without that person's consent
Both branches require that an image actually be created. The current statute contains no separate viewing-only offense. It covers hidden cameras placed in bathrooms, bedrooms, changing rooms, hotel rooms, and other locations where a person would reasonably expect to be free from observation, and it covers "upskirting" and similar acts.
Penalties for Invasion of Privacy
The penalties for invasion of privacy under RSMo 565.252 depend on the circumstances:
| Offense Level | Classification | Maximum Imprisonment | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| First offense | Class A Misdemeanor | Up to 1 year in jail | $2,000 |
| Distribution of images | Class E Felony | Up to 4 years in prison | $10,000 |
| Multiple victims in same course of conduct | Class E Felony | Up to 4 years in prison | $10,000 |
| Prior conviction for invasion of privacy | Class E Felony | Up to 4 years in prison | $10,000 |
The offense escalates from a class A misdemeanor to a class E felony when any of the following apply, as specified under RSMo 565.252:
- The offender distributes or transmits the image to another person, including via computer
- The offender disseminates or permits dissemination of a videotape, photograph, or film obtained in violation of the statute
- More than one person was viewed, photographed, filmed, or videotaped during the same course of conduct
- The offender has previously been found guilty of invasion of privacy
Penalty classifications are defined under RSMo 558.011 for imprisonment terms and RSMo 558.002 for fine amounts.
Audio Recording Laws in Missouri (One-Party Consent)
Missouri's wiretapping and eavesdropping law is found in RSMo 542.402 and is critical to understand for anyone using surveillance cameras with audio capabilities.
One-Party Consent Rule
Missouri follows a one-party consent standard, and it comes from subsection 2(3) of RSMo 542.402. That subdivision makes it lawful for a person not acting under law to intercept a wire communication where such person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.
The communication type matters. Subsection 2(3) is written for wire communications. The broader "wire or oral" phrasing in the neighboring subdivision applies to a person acting under law, and the chapter contains no "electronic communication" category at all. RSMo 542.400 defines "intercept" as the aural acquisition of the contents of a wire communication.
This means:
- You can legally record a phone call you are part of without telling the other person
- Another party to the communication can consent to its recording on their own
- You cannot intercept a wire communication between two other people when neither party has consented and you are not a participant
When One-Party Consent Does Not Apply
The one-party consent provision in RSMo 542.402 does not apply when the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act. If you are recording a conversation with the intent to blackmail, harass, or commit some other illegal act, the recording itself becomes illegal regardless of your status as a party to the conversation.
Criminal Penalties for Illegal Wiretapping
Violating Missouri's wiretapping law is a class E felony under RSMo 542.402. The prohibition in subsection 1 covers knowingly intercepting a wire communication, and separately covers using a device to intercept an oral communication when that device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission. Under RSMo 558.011, a class E felony carries a maximum prison sentence of up to 4 years. Fines of up to $10,000 may also be imposed under RSMo 558.002.
Civil Liability for Illegal Recording
In addition to criminal penalties, RSMo 542.418 provides a civil cause of action for anyone whose wire communication is illegally intercepted, disclosed, or used. A victim can recover:
- Actual damages suffered as a result of the violation
- Liquidated damages of $100 per day for each day of the violation, or $10,000, whichever is greater
- Punitive damages if the violation was willful or intentional
- Reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs
These civil remedies are available in addition to any criminal prosecution.
Workplace Surveillance Camera Laws in Missouri
Missouri does not have a specific statute that governs workplace surveillance cameras. Instead, workplace monitoring is governed by the same general privacy principles found in RSMo 565.252 and RSMo 542.402, along with federal guidelines.
Where Employers Can Place Cameras
Employers may generally install video surveillance cameras in:
- Lobbies and reception areas
- Hallways and corridors
- Production floors and warehouse areas
- Parking lots and garages
- Cash register and point-of-sale areas
- Entrances and exits
These are all areas where employees and the public do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Where Employers Should Not Place Cameras
Employers should keep cameras out of:
- Restrooms and toilets
- Changing rooms and locker areas
- Break rooms designated as private spaces
- Private offices where the door is closed
- Any area where employees undress or would reasonably expect to be unobserved
No Missouri statute bans workplace cameras in these locations by name. The exposure comes from two directions. A camera in a restroom or changing area can produce criminal charges under RSMo 565.252 if it creates an image of a nude or partially nude person, and any of these placements can support a civil invasion of privacy claim whether or not a criminal charge follows.
Audio Recording in the Workplace
If workplace cameras record audio, RSMo 542.402 is the statute to check, though its interception ban is framed around wire communications. An employer may record a wire communication such as a phone call when a party to that call consents. For ordinary in-person conversation picked up by a camera microphone, the criminal statute's reach is limited, but recording employee conversations without notice still invites civil claims.
The safest approach for employers is to use video-only surveillance in common areas and to provide written notice to employees about the presence of cameras.
Nanny Cam Laws in Missouri
Parents in Missouri can legally use nanny cams (hidden or visible) to monitor caregivers in their home. No federal or state law prohibits video recording inside your own home for the purpose of monitoring childcare.
Video Recording With Nanny Cams
You can place video-only nanny cams in:
- Living rooms and family rooms
- Kitchens and dining areas
- Playrooms and nurseries
- Hallways and entryways
You should not place nanny cams in:
- Bathrooms or powder rooms
- Guest bedrooms used by the caregiver as private sleeping quarters
- Any area where the caregiver undresses or would reasonably expect to be unobserved
A camera in one of those spaces is where RSMo 565.252 exposure becomes real, because that is where an image of a nude or partially nude person is likely to be created.
Audio Recording With Nanny Cams
The one-party consent provision in RSMo 542.402 is written for wire communications, so audio from a nanny cam sits outside the clearest part of the statute rather than squarely inside it. That uncertainty cuts both ways, and it is not a green light. The safest practice is to inform your caregiver that audio and video recording takes place in the home, or to use video-only cameras.
Disclosing Nanny Cam Use
Missouri law does not require you to disclose the presence of hidden cameras in your own home. However, many legal professionals recommend informing caregivers about monitoring for two reasons: it may deter problematic behavior, and it reduces the risk of legal disputes over audio recording consent.
Government Surveillance Cameras on Private Property
Missouri has a specific statute that limits government use of surveillance cameras on private land. Under RSMo 542.525, no employee of a state agency or political subdivision of the state may place any surveillance camera or game camera on private property without first obtaining one of the following:
- Consent from the landowner or the landowner's designee
- A search warrant as required under Article I, Section 15 of the Missouri Constitution or the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution
- Permission from the highest-ranking law enforcement chief or officer of the agency or political subdivision, but only when the camera faces a location open to public access or use and is located within 100 feet of the intended surveillance location
This law was enacted to protect private property owners from warrantless government surveillance. It applies to all types of surveillance cameras and game cameras placed by government employees.
Electronic Monitoring in Long-Term Care Facilities
Missouri has a dedicated law governing electronic monitoring in nursing homes and long-term care facilities. The Authorized Electronic Monitoring in Long-Term Care Facilities Act (RSMo 198.610 through 198.632) establishes rules for families who want to monitor the care of their loved ones.
Key Provisions
Under this act:
- A facility must permit a resident or the resident's guardian or legal representative to monitor the room of the resident through electronic monitoring devices (RSMo 198.622)
- Each facility must use an electronic monitoring device acknowledgment form developed by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (RSMo 198.616)
- Each facility must post a notice at the entrance stating that some rooms may be monitored electronically
- Facilities are not civilly or criminally liable for activity arising out of a resident's use of electronic monitoring devices (RSMo 198.612)
- Recordings cannot be released without written permission from the resident or their guardian and the facility, except in cases involving abuse or neglect
Consent Requirements
If a resident shares a room with another person, the roommate (or the roommate's guardian or legal representative) must also consent to the electronic monitoring. The monitoring device must be installed in a manner that is safe for residents, employees, and visitors.
Drone Surveillance Laws in Missouri
As of 2026, Missouri does not have a comprehensive drone surveillance privacy law, though several provisions address specific situations. Both of the restrictions below are altitude ceilings over the protected property, not horizontal standoff distances, which is a common misreading.
RSMo 217.850 makes it an offense to operate an unmanned aircraft within a vertical distance of four hundred feet over a correctional center's secure perimeter fence.
RSMo 577.800 uses the same structure for entertainment venues. It prohibits operating an unmanned aircraft within a vertical distance of four hundred feet from the ground and within the property line of an open-air facility, which the statute defines as any sports, theater, music, performing arts, or other entertainment facility with a capacity of five hundred people or more that is not completely enclosed by a roof or other structure. A base violation is an infraction, and the statute carries felony grades for using a drone to deliver weapons, explosives, or controlled substances.
Using a drone to create an image of someone who is fully or partially nude in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy can still result in criminal charges under RSMo 565.252. Drone photography of private property that captures nothing of that kind falls outside that statute, and any remedy would be civil.
Summary of Missouri Surveillance Camera Penalties
| Violation | Statute | Classification | Max Imprisonment | Max Fine |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Invasion of privacy (first offense) | RSMo 565.252 | Class A Misdemeanor | 1 year | $2,000 |
| Invasion of privacy (distribution/prior conviction) | RSMo 565.252 | Class E Felony | 4 years | $10,000 |
| Illegal wiretapping/audio recording | RSMo 542.402 | Class E Felony | 4 years | $10,000 |
| Government camera on private property without authorization | RSMo 542.525 | Varies | Varies | Varies |
Related Missouri Camera and Privacy Laws
- Missouri Recording Laws covers the consent rule that governs camera audio in Missouri.
- Missouri Security Camera Recording Rules explains the recording-law side of camera use.
- Missouri Biometric Privacy Laws addresses facial recognition and biometric data.
- Missouri Ring Doorbell Laws covers video doorbell rules in Missouri.
Common Camera Questions
These national guides answer the most common surveillance camera questions:
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to have security cameras on my house in Missouri?
Yes, Missouri law allows homeowners to install security cameras on their own property. You can place cameras on your front porch, in your driveway, in your backyard, and inside common areas of your home. The criminal restriction in RSMo 565.252 is narrow: it applies when a camera is used to create an image of a person in a state of full or partial nudity in a place where they expect privacy, or to create an image under or through clothing. A camera aimed into a neighbor's bedroom or bathroom window is the clear violation. A camera that merely takes in a neighbor's yard is not a crime under that statute, though it can support a civil claim. If your cameras record audio, the one-party consent provision in RSMo 542.402 is written for wire communications such as phone calls.
Can my neighbor point a security camera at my property in Missouri?
A neighbor can install cameras on their own property that incidentally capture portions of your property, such as a shared driveway or a view of your front yard from their porch camera. RSMo 565.252 is violated only if the camera creates an image of someone in a state of full or partial nudity in a place where they expect privacy, or an image made under or through clothing, so a camera aimed through your bedroom or bathroom window is the situation that statute reaches. A camera that simply overlooks your fenced backyard is not a crime under RSMo 565.252, but it may support a civil invasion of privacy claim or, if the conduct is targeted at you, a harassment complaint. You can file a police report or consult an attorney.
Is Missouri a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
Missouri is described as a one-party consent state, and the rule comes from RSMo 542.402. Its subsection 2(3) makes it lawful for a person not acting under law to intercept a wire communication where that person is a party to the communication, or where one party has given prior consent. So if you are on a phone call, your own consent is enough and you do not need to tell the other person. Note the scope: that subdivision covers wire communications, RSMo 542.400 defines interception as the aural acquisition of a wire communication, and the chapter has no electronic communication category. What you cannot do is intercept a wire communication between two other people when neither has consented and you are not a participant.
Are nanny cams legal in Missouri?
Yes, nanny cams are legal in Missouri. You can install video cameras in common areas of your home such as living rooms, kitchens, and playrooms to monitor your children and their caregivers. Cameras should not be placed in bathrooms or in private bedrooms used by the caregiver, since those are the placements most likely to create an image covered by RSMo 565.252. On audio, the one-party consent provision in RSMo 542.402 is written for wire communications, so nanny cam audio sits in a less settled area of the statute. The safest approach is to inform caregivers about all recording devices in the home.
What are the penalties for illegal surveillance in Missouri?
Penalties vary depending on the specific violation. Invasion of privacy under RSMo 565.252 is a class A misdemeanor for a first offense, punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $2,000 fine. The charge escalates to a class E felony (up to 4 years in prison and a $10,000 fine) if images are distributed, more than one person is filmed during the same course of conduct, or the offender has a prior conviction. Illegal wiretapping under RSMo 542.402 is a class E felony, carrying up to 4 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. A person whose wire communication is illegally intercepted can also sue under RSMo 542.418 for actual damages or liquidated damages of $100 per day or $10,000, whichever is greater.
Can my employer record me at work with security cameras in Missouri?
Missouri does not have a workplace surveillance statute, and employers may generally install video cameras in common work areas such as lobbies, hallways, production floors, and parking lots. Employers should keep cameras out of restrooms, changing rooms, and locker rooms: a camera in those spaces can bring criminal charges under RSMo 565.252 if it creates an image of a nude or partially nude person, and it supports a civil invasion of privacy claim in any event. If cameras record audio, RSMo 542.402 governs, though its one-party consent provision is written for wire communications rather than ambient in-person conversation. The safest practice for employers is video-only cameras plus written notice to employees.
Updates
Corrected the scope of Missouri invasion-of-privacy law (RSMo 565.252 requires nudity or an under-clothing image, not merely recording a private area), restated the RSMo 542.402 one-party consent rule as the wire-communication provision it actually is, removed the nonexistent viewing-only offense from both penalty tables, and fixed the drone rules as altitude ceilings over the protected property with the correct 500-person open-air facility threshold.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected illegal wiretapping's felony classification: RSMo 542.402 is a class E felony (up to 4 years under RSMo 558.011), not a class D felony (which caps at 7 years) as the article previously stated in the body text, FAQ, and penalties table.
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 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 Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
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 Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Missouri Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026), Missouri Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP
§ 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 Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
§ 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 10 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 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 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)
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XII (PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE), Chapter 198
§ 198.610Citation of law — definitions.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
1. The provisions of sections 198.610 to 198.632 shall be known and may be cited as the "Authorized Electronic Monitoring in Long-Term Care Facilities Act". 2. For purposes of sections 198.610 to 198.632, the following terms shall mean: (1) "Authorized electronic monitoring", the placement and use of an electronic monitoring device by a resident in his or her room in accordance with the provisions of sections 198.610 to 198.632; (2) "Department", the department of health and senior services; (3) "Electronic monitoring device", a surveillance instrument capable of recording or transmitting audio or video footage of any activity occurring in a resident's room; (4) "Facility" or "long-term care facility", any residential care facility, assisted living facility, intermediate care facility, or skilled nursing facility, as such terms are defined under section 198.006; (5) "Guardian", the same meaning as defined under section 475.010; (6) "Legal representative", a person authorized under a durable power of attorney that complies with sections 404.700 to 404.737 to act on behalf of a resident of a facility; (7) "Resident", a person residing in a facility.
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 Nursing Home Camera Laws: RSMo §§ 198.610-198.632 Electronic Monitoring, Nursing Home Camera Laws by State (2026): Granny Cam Rights
§ 198.612Placement of electronic monitoring device — immunity from liability, when — release of recordings, when — rulemaking authority.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
1. Residents of long-term care facilities in this state shall have the right to place in the resident's room an authorized electronic monitoring device that is owned and operated by the resident or provided by the resident's guardian or legal representative. 2. No facility shall be civilly or criminally liable for activity or action arising out of the use by any resident or any resident's guardian or legal representative of any electronic monitoring device, including the facility's inadvertent or intentional disclosure of a recording made by a resident, or by a person who consents on behalf of the resident, for any purpose not authorized under sections 198.610 to 198.632. 3. No facility shall be civilly or criminally liable for a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) or any resident's right to privacy arising out of any electronic monitoring conducted under sections 198.610 to 198.632. 4. Except for cases of abuse and neglect, no person shall release any recording made under sections 198.610 to 198.632 without the written permission of the resident or the resident's guardian or legal representative and the long-term care facility.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
§ 198.616Acknowledgment form, contents.In force
Each facility shall use an electronic monitoring device acknowledgment form developed by the department and adopted by regulation. The form shall be offered to any resident or resident's guardian or legal representative upon request. The form shall be completed and signed by or on behalf of a resident prior to the installation of, or any use of, an electronic monitoring device in the facility. The form shall state: (1) That a person who places an electronic monitoring device in the room of a resident or who uses or discloses a tape or other recording made by the device may be civilly liable for any unlawful violation of the privacy rights of another; (2) That a person who, without authorization, places an electronic monitoring device in the room of a resident or who consents to or acquiesces in the unauthorized placement of the device in the room of a resident has waived any privacy right the person may have had in connection with images or sounds that may be acquired by the device; (3) That a resident or the resident's guardian or legal representative is entitled to conduct authorized electronic monitoring, and that if the facility refuses to permit the electronic…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
§ 198.622Facility to permit monitoring, requirements.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
1. A facility shall permit a resident or the resident's guardian or legal representative to monitor the room of the resident through the use of electronic monitoring devices. 2. The facility shall require a resident who conducts authorized electronic monitoring, or the resident's guardian or legal representative, to post and maintain a conspicuous notice at the entrance to the resident's room. The notice shall state that the room is being monitored by an electronic monitoring device. 3. Authorized electronic monitoring conducted under sections 198.610 to 198.632 shall not be compulsory and shall be conducted only at the request of the resident or the resident's guardian or legal representative. 4. A facility shall not refuse to admit an individual to residency in the facility and shall not remove a resident from the facility because of a request to conduct authorized electronic monitoring. A facility shall not remove a resident from the facility because unauthorized electronic monitoring is being conducted by or on behalf of a resident.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XIII (CORRECTIONAL AND PENAL INSTITUTIONS), Chapter 217
§ 217.850Correctional center, unlawful use of unmanned aircraft over, offense of — permissible acts — violation, penalty — signage to be posted.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of unmanned aircraft over a correctional center if he or she purposely: (1) Operates an unmanned aircraft within a vertical distance of four hundred feet over a correctional center's secure perimeter fence; or (2) Allows an unmanned aircraft to make contact with a correctional center, including any person or object on the premises of or within the facility. 2. For purposes of this section, "correctional center" shall include: (1) Any correctional center as defined in section 217.010; (2) Any private jail as defined in section 221.095; and (3) Any county or municipal jail.
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 Drone Laws (2026): Stadiums, Prisons & Privacy
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 577
§ 577.800Unlawful use of unmanned aircraft over open-air facility, offense of — permissible acts — violation, penalty — signage.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of unmanned aircraft over an open-air facility if he or she purposely: (1) Operates an unmanned aircraft within a vertical distance of four hundred feet from the ground and within the property line of an open-air facility; or (2) Uses an unmanned aircraft with the purpose of delivering to a person within an open-air facility any object described in subdivision (1) or (2) of subsection 4 of this section. 2. For purposes of this section, "open-air facility" shall mean any sports, theater, music, performing arts, or other entertainment facility with a capacity of five thousand people or more and not completely enclosed by a roof or other structure.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- RSMo 565.252: Invasion of Privacy, Penalty(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 542.402: Penalty for Illegal Wiretapping, Permitted Activities(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 542.525: Surveillance or Game Cameras on Private Property(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 542.418: Civil Action for Illegal Wiretap, Damages(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 558.011: Authorized Terms of Imprisonment(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 558.002: Fines for Felonies(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 198.610: Authorized Electronic Monitoring in Long-Term Care Facilities Act(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 198.622: Facility Shall Permit Electronic Monitoring(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 198.616: Acknowledgment Form Requirements(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 198.612: Placement, Immunity from Liability(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 217.850: Drone Prohibition Near Correctional Institutions(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 577.800: Drone Restrictions Near Open-Air Facilities(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- RSMo 542.400: Wiretapping Definitions(revisor.mo.gov).gov