Electronic Surveillance Laws

 State laws ||  Federal laws || Contacts

 *PLEASE NOTE: The National Conference of State Legislatures serves state legislators and their staff.   This site provides comparative information only and should not be construed as legal advice.  NCSL cannot provide assistance with individual cases.

---

Federal law includes all interstate calls, and there are several sources of authority for electronic surveillance in the U.S.  The Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications Act (formally known as the "Title III" Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C §§ 2510-2520), typically requires a court order issued by a judge who must decide that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been, is being or is about to be committed. Wiretaps can also be ordered in suspected cases of terrorist bombings, hijackings and other violent activities are crimes. The government can wiretap in advance of a crime being perpetrated. Judges seldom deny government requests for wiretap orders.

Electronic surveillance involves the traditional laws on wiretapping--any interception of a telephone transmission by accessing the telephone signal itself--and eavesdropping--listening in on conversations without the consent of the parties.   More recently, states have extended these laws to cover data communications as well as telephone surveillance.  For example, in Florida, interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications is prohibited.  State and federal policymakers face the challenge of balancing security needs via electronic surveillance against individual privacy. 
 

 State Laws

Last update: 3/23/2012

AL | AK | AZ | AR | CA | CO | CT | DE | DC | FL | GA | GU | HI | ID | IL | IN | IA | KS | KY | LA | ME | MD | MA | MI | MN | MS | MO | MT | NE |NV | NH | NJ | NM | NY | NC | ND | OH | OK | OR | PA | PR | RI | SC | SD | TN | TX | UT | VT | VI | VA | WA | WV | WI | WY | 

* jump to  federal laws || contacts

State	Cite		Includes Photo/Video	Includes Cellphones?	Specifically Mentions "Electronic" or "Computer"?		Party Consent
Alabama	Ala. Code §13A-11-30		yes - Ala.   Code § 13A-11-32	yes	yes		1
Alaska	§42.20.310		yes, if contain nudity - Alaska Stat. § 11.61.123.	yes	yes		1
Arizona	Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13-3005		yes	yes	yes		1
Arkansas	Ark. Code §5-60-120 Ark. Code §5-16-101		yes - Ark. Code §5-16-101	yes	yes		1
California	Cal. Penal Code §631, 632		yes - Cal. Penal Code §647	yes	yes		all
Colorado	Colo Rev. Stat. §18-9-303		no	yes	yes		1
Connecticut	Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-570d:		no	yes	yes		all
Delaware	Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, §2402(c)(4)		yes - Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1335(2), (6)	yes	yes "trespass by other means of communicating privately"		1
DC	D.C. Code Ann. § 23-541; §23-542		yes- “intercepting device” means any electronic, mechanical, or other device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire or oral communication (§ 23-541).	yes	yes		1
Florida	Fla. Stat. ch. 934.03		yes	yes	yes		all
Georgia	Ga. Code Ann. §16-11-62		yes	yes	yes		1
Guam	GCA §70.35		yes	yes	yes		1
Hawaii	Haw. Rev. Stat. §803-42		yes	yes	yes		1
Idaho	Idaho Code §18-6702		yes	yes	yes		1
Illinois	720 ILCS 5/14-2		yes - 720 ILCS 5/14-2	yes	yes		all
Indiana	Ind. Code Ann. §35-33.5-1-5		yes	yes	yes		1
Iowa	Iowa Code §727.8		yes	yes	yes, "communication of any kind"		1
Kansas	Kan. Stat. Ann. §21-6101		yes	yes	yes		1
Kentucky	Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §526.010		yes, “record… oral communications…by means of any electronic, mechanical or other device”	yes - Ky. Att'y Gen. Op. 84-310	yes		1
Louisiana	La. Rev. Stat. §15:1303		yes - see La. Rev. Stat. § 14:283	yes	yes		1
Maine	Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, §709		yes - see Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, §511.	yes	yes		1
Maryland	Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings §10-402		yes	yes	yes - § 10-410.		all
Massachusetts	Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 , §99		yes, when sound is involved	yes	no		all
Michigan	Mich. Comp. Laws §750.539c		yes - see 750.539d	yes	yes		all
Minnesota	Minn. Stat. §626A.02		yes	yes	yes - 626A.02		1
Mississippi	Miss. Code Ann.§41-29-501 to -537		yes - see Miss. Code Ann. § 97-29-63	yes	yes "other communications"		1
Missouri	Mo. Rev. Stat. §542.402		yes, if partial nudity see - Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.253.	yes	yes		1
Montana	Mont. Code Ann. §45-8-213		yes	yes	yes - "electronic mail"		all
Nebraska	Neb. Rev. Stat. §86-290		yes - see Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-276	yes	yes		1
Nevada	Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §200.620		yes - see Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.610.	yes - "wireless methods"	yes		all by court descision
New Hampshire	N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §570-A:2		yes - NH Rev Stat §644:9	yes	yes		all
New Jersey	N.J. Stat. §2A:156A-3		yes	yes	yes		1
New Mexico	N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-12-1		no	yes,“using any apparatus to do or cause to be done any of the acts mentioned”	no		1
New York	N.Y. Penal Law §250.00, 250.05		yes - see Gen. Bus. Law 395-b	yes	yes		1
North Carolina	N.C. Gen. Stat. §15A-287; §14-155.		yes - see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-286.	yes	yes - § 15A-287		1
North Dakota	N.D. Cent. Code §12.1-15-02		Yes-intercepting an oral communication “by use of any electronic,mechanical, or other device”	yes-“by use of any electronic,mechanical, or other device”	no		1
Ohio	Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2933.52		yes - see Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.51	yes	yes		1
Oklahoma	13 Okl. St. § 176.2 et seq.		yes-where an oral communication is recorded ”through the use of any electronic, mechanical or other device”	yes	yes		1
Oregon	Or. Rev. Stat. §165.540, 165.543  §133.005; 163.700		yes - Ore. Rev. Stat. § 163.700	yes	yes		1
Pennsylvania	18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5703		yes	yes	yes		all
Puerto Rico	P.R. Penal Code Art. 182		yes	yes	yes
Rhode Island	R.I. Gen. Laws §11-35-21, §12-5.1		yes - See R.I. Gen Laws § 12-5.1	yes	yes		1
South Carolina	S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-20		yes - under "peeping tom" provision	yes	yes		1
South Dakota	S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35A-20		yes - S.D. Codified Laws § 22-21-1	yes	yes		1
Tennessee	Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-601		yes - § 39-13-605	yes - § 39-13-604	yes		1
Texas	Texas Penal Code § 16.02		yes	yes	yes		1
Utah	Utah Code Ann. § 77-23a-4		yes - § 76-9-402	yes	yes		1
Vermont	Vermont has passed no law specifically addressing interception of communications; however the Vermont Supreme Court has held that an individual has a heightened expectation of privacy in the home and warrantless recording/electronic monitoring of communications in a person's home is an unlawful invasion of privacy.
Virgin Islands	V.I. Code § 4102	yes- any electronic means of recording of a private  oral conversation		yes		yes		1
Virginia	Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-62	yes		yes		yes		1
Washington	Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030	yes, any means of recording of a private conversation		yes		yes		all
West Virginia	W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3	yes		yes		yes		1
Wisconsin	Wis. Stat. § 968.31	yes		yes		yes		1
Wyoming	Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-701	yes		yes		yes		1
TOTALS		44		44		50		40=1 party  12=all party

Federal Laws

* jump to  state laws ||  contacts

 Federal law includes all interstate calls, and there are several sources of authority for electronic surveillance in the U.S.  The Wire and Electronic Communications Interception and Interception of Oral Communications Act (formally known as the "Title III" Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C §§ 2510-2520,), typically requires a court order issued by a judge who must decide that there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been, is being or is about to be committed. Wiretaps can also be ordered in suspected cases of terrorist bombings, hijackings and other violent activities are crimes. The government can wiretap in advance of a crime being perpetrated. Judges seldom deny government requests for wiretap orders.

Wiretapping of aliens and citizens in the U.S. is allowed under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA", 50 U.S.C 1801 et seq). For U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens, there must also be probable cause to believe that the person is engaged in activities that "may" involve a criminal violation. Suspicion of illegal activity is not required in the case of aliens who are not permanent residents. No legislative limits on U.S. government electronic eavesdropping carried out overseas.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 ("ECPA", 18 U.S.C 2701), sets standards for access to cellphones, email and other electronic communications and to transactional records (subscriber identifying information, logs, toll records). The pen registers and trap and trace device statute, enacted as part of ECPA. (18 U.S.C 3121 et seq), governs real-time interception of "the numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted on the telephone line to which such device is attached."

In 1994, Congress adopted the digital telephony law, or Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act  ("CALEA", Public Law 103–414, 47 U.S.C. 1001–1010). CALEA was intended to preserve law enforcement wiretapping capabilities by requiring telephone companies to design their systems to ensure a basic level of government access.

In the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks, Congress passed legislation significantly broadening the scope of federal electronic surveillance laws.  H. R. 3162 (the USA PATRIOT Act), signed by President Bush on October 26, adds terrorism offenses, computer fraud, and abuse offenses to the list of predicates for obtaining Title III wiretaps.  H.R. 3162 also permits roving wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) in the same manner as they are permitted under Title III wiretaps.  Pursuant to H.R. 3162 intelligence information obtained from wiretaps may be shared with law enforcement, intelligence, immigration, or national security personnel.   Recipients can use the information only in the conduct of their duties and are subject to the limitations in current law of unauthorized disclosure of wiretap information.

H.R. 3162 also expands the use of traditional pen register or trap and trace devices (captures the telephone numbers of incoming callers) so that they apply not just to telephones, but also to Internet communications so long as they exclude "content." These devices may now also be used under FISA without having to show that the telephone covered was used in communications with someone involved in terrorism or intelligence activities that may violate U.S. criminal laws.  Multi-jurisdictional warrants may be obtained for wiretapping purposes, making it easier to track criminals across borders.

NCSL Contacts

State Information Pam Greenberg, NCSL Denver Office

Federal Information Susan Frederick, NCSL Washington D.C. Office