Switch to ADA Accessible Theme
Close Menu
Home / Blog / Criminal Defense / Audio and Videotaping Others in Virginia

Audio and Videotaping Others in Virginia

Close-up of a blue camera lens with reflections and a bokeh effect in the background, illustrating photography focus.

This post should not be considered as providing any legal advice. It is purely for informative purposes only. If you have questions, you should speak to an attorney immediately.

In Virginia, there are statutes that prohibit the videotaping or filming of another and the illegal interception of a wire, electronic or oral communications. The following Virginia statutes should provide guidance:

§ 19.2-62. Interception, disclosure, etc., of wire, electronic or oral communications unlawful; penalties; exceptions.

A. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who:

1. Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, electronic or oral communication;

2. Intentionally 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;

3. Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or

4. Intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

B. 1. It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee or agent of a provider of wire or electronic communications service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service. However, a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks. It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for providers of wire or electronic communications service, their officers, employees and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons pursuant to a court order under this chapter, to provide information facilities or technical assistance to an investigative or law-enforcement officer, who, pursuant to this chapter, is authorized to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication.

2. It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.

3. It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for any person:

(a) To intercept or access an electronic communication made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public;

(b) To intercept any radio communication which is transmitted (i) by any station for the use of the general public, or that relates to ships, aircraft, vehicles, or persons in distress, (ii) by any governmental, law-enforcement, civil defense, private land mobile, or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public, (iii) by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the bands allocated to the amateur, citizens band, or general mobile radio services; or (iv) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;

(c) To intercept any wire or electronic communication the transmission of which is causing harmful interference to any lawfully operating station or consumer electronic equipment, to the extent necessary to identify the source of such interference;

(d) Using the same frequency to intercept any radio communication made through a system that utilizes frequencies monitored by individuals engaged in the provision or the use of such system, if such communication is not scrambled or encrypted;

(e) To use a pen register or a trap and trace device pursuant to §§ 19.2-70.1 and 19.2-70.2; or

(f) Who is a provider of electronic communication service to record the fact that a wire or electronic communication was initiated or completed in order to protect such provider, another provider furnishing service toward the completion of the wire or electronic communication, or a user of that service, from fraudulent, unlawful or abusive use of such service.

C. A person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not intentionally divulge the contents of any communication, other than one to such person or entity or an agent thereof, while in transmission on that service to any person or entity other than an addressee or intended recipient of such communication or an agent of the addressee or intended recipient. However, a person or entity providing electronic communication service to the public may divulge the contents of any such communication:

1. As authorized in subdivision B 1 of this section or § 19.2-67;

2. With the lawful consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of such communication;

3. To a person employed or authorized, or whose facilities are used, to forward such communication to its destination; or

4. Which were inadvertently obtained by the service provider and which appear to pertain to the commission of a crime, to a law-enforcement agency.

Conduct otherwise an offense under this subsection that consists of or relates to the interception of a satellite transmission that is not encrypted or scrambled and that is transmitted (i) to a broadcasting station for purposes of retransmission to the general public, or (ii) as an audio subcarrier intended for redistribution to facilities open to the public, but not including data transmissions or telephone calls, is not an offense under this section unless the conduct is for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private financial gain. Further, private viewing of a satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted and interception of a radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated under subpart D of Part 74 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission that is not scrambled or encrypted when the viewing or interception is not done for a tortious or illegal purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, shall not be offenses under this chapter.

Violation of this subsection shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

§ 19.2-61. Definitions.

As used in this chapter:

“Aggrieved person” means a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, electronic or oral communication or a person against whom the interception was directed;

“Aural transfer” means a transfer containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception;

“Communications common carrier” means any person engaged as a common carrier for hire in communication by wire or radio or in radio transmission of energy;

“Contents” when used with respect to any wire, electronic or oral communication, includes any information concerning the substance, purport or meaning of that communication;

“Electronic, mechanical or other device” means any device or apparatus that can be used to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication other than:

(a) Any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or facility, or any component thereof, (i) furnished to the subscriber or user by a provider of wire or electronic communication service in the ordinary course of its business and being used by the subscriber or user in the ordinary course of its business or furnished by the subscriber or user for connection to the facilities of such service and used in the ordinary course of the subscriber’s or user’s business; or (ii) being used by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business, or by an investigative or law-enforcement officer in the ordinary course of his duties;

(b) A hearing aid or similar device being used to correct subnormal hearing to not better than normal;

“Electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system. The term does not include:

1. Any wire communication or oral communication as defined herein;

2. Any communication made through a tone-only paging device;

3. Any communication from an electronic or mechanical device which permits the tracking of the movement of a person or object; or

4. Any electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds;

“Electronic communication service” means any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications;

“Electronic communication system” means any wire, radio, electromagnetic, photooptical or photoelectronic facilities for the transmission of wire or electronic communications, and any computer facilities or related electronic equipment for the electronic storage of such communications;

“Electronic storage” means any temporary, intermediate storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission thereof and any storage of such communication by an electronic communication service for purposes of backup protection of such communication;

“Intercept” means any aural or other means of acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical or other device;

“Investigative or law-enforcement officer” means any officer of the United States or of a state or political subdivision thereof, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of or to make arrests for offenses enumerated in this chapter, and any attorney authorized by law to prosecute or participate in the prosecution of such offenses;

“Judge of competent jurisdiction” means a judge of any circuit court of the Commonwealth with general criminal jurisdiction;

“Monitor” or “monitoring” means the actual auditory or visual acquisition of an intercepted communication by any means;

“Oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectations but does not include any electronic communication;

“Pen register” means a device or process that records or decodes dialing, routing, addressing or signaling information transmitted by an instrument or facility from which a wire or electronic communication is transmitted; however, such information shall not include the contents of any communication. The term does not include any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing, for communications services provided by such provider or any device or process used by a provider or customer of a wire communication service for cost accounting or other like purposes in the ordinary course of the provider’s or customer’s business;

“Person” means any employee or agent of the Commonwealth or a political subdivision thereof, and any individual, partnership, association, joint stock company, trust or corporation;

“Readily accessible to the general public” means, with respect to a radio communication, that such communication is not (i) scrambled or encrypted; (ii) transmitted using modulation techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communication; (iii) carried on a subcarrier or other signal subsidiary to a radio transmission; (iv) transmitted over a communication system provided by a communications common carrier, unless the communication is a tone-only paging system communication; or (v) transmitted on frequencies allocated under Part 25, subpart D, E, or F of Part 74, or Part 94 of the Rules of the Federal Communications Commission, unless, in the case of a communication transmitted on a frequency allocated under Part 74 that is not exclusively allocated to broadcast auxiliary services, the communication is a two-way voice communication by radio;

“Remote computing service” means the provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications system;

“Trap and trace device” means a device or process that captures the incoming electronic or other impulses that identify the originating number or other dialing, routing, addressing and signaling information reasonably likely to identify the source of a wire or electronic communication; however, such information shall not include the contents of any communication;

“User” means any person or entity who uses an electronic communication service and is duly authorized by the provider of such service to engage in such use;

“Wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection, including the use of such connection in a switching station, furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of communications.

Code 1950, § 19.1-89.1; 1973, c. 442; 1975, c. 495; 1988, c. 889; 2002, cc. 588, 623; 2005, c. 934.

The chapters of the acts of assembly referenced in the historical citation at the end of this section may not constitute a comprehensive list of such chapters and may exclude chapters whose provisions have expired.

§ 18.2-386.1. Unlawful creation of image of another; penalty.

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly and intentionally create any videographic or still image by any means whatsoever of any nonconsenting person if (i) that person is totally nude, clad in undergarments, or in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast in a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, bedroom or other location; or (ii) the videographic or still image is created by placing the lens or image-gathering component of the recording device in a position directly beneath or between a person’s legs for the purpose of capturing an image of the person’s intimate parts or undergarments covering those intimate parts when the intimate parts or undergarments would not otherwise be visible to the general public; and when the circumstances set forth in clause (i) or (ii) are otherwise such that the person being recorded would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

B. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any videographic or still image created by any means whatsoever by (i) law-enforcement officers pursuant to a criminal investigation which is otherwise lawful or (ii) correctional officials and local or regional jail officials for security purposes or for investigations of alleged misconduct involving a person committed to the Department of Corrections or to a local or regional jail, or to any sound recording of an oral conversation made as a result of any videotaping or filming pursuant to Chapter 6 (§ 19.2-61 et seq.) of Title 19.2.

C. A violation of subsection A shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.

D. A violation of subsection A involving a nonconsenting person under the age of 18 shall be punishable as a Class 6 felony.

E. Where it is alleged in the warrant, information, or indictment on which the person is convicted and found by the court or jury trying the case that the person has previously been convicted within the 10-year period immediately preceding the offense charged of two or more of the offenses specified in this section, each such offense occurring on a different date, and when such offenses were not part of a common act, transaction, or scheme, and such person has been at liberty as defined in § 53.1-151 between each conviction, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

§ 8.01-420.2. Limitation on use of recorded conversations as evidence.

No mechanical recording, electronic or otherwise, of a telephone conversation shall be admitted into evidence in any civil proceeding unless (i) all parties to the conversation were aware the conversation was being recorded or (ii) the portion of the recording to be admitted contains admissions that, if true, would constitute criminal conduct which is the basis for the civil action, and one of the parties was aware of the recording and the proceeding is not one for divorce, separate maintenance or annulment of a marriage. The parties’ knowledge of the recording pursuant to clause (i) shall be demonstrated by a declaration at the beginning of the recorded portion of the conversation to be admitted into evidence that the conversation is being recorded. This section shall not apply to emergency reporting systems operated by police and fire departments and by emergency medical services agencies, nor to any communications common carrier utilizing service observing or random monitoring pursuant to § 19.2-62.

Real Clients, Real Outcomes: Read Our Reviews
Posted on Google Google
Robert Bolden III profile picture
Robert Bolden III
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Tony was amazing! I initially found him online while researching lawyers in my area, and what sealed the deal was a close family friend who is an experienced lawyer themselves. They confirmed Tony was the person to go to. You can immediately tell he is experienced and knows his stuff. Every time we met, I felt valued and like I had his full attention. He took the time to make sure I understood everything at each step along the way. His paralegal Jay was equally awesome with top-tier communication throughout the entire process. I strongly recommend Tony to anyone looking for exceptional legal representation.
Posted on Google Google
Marcus R profile picture
Marcus R
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Mr Montagna goes above and beyond for his clients. I highly recommend his law firm.
Posted on Google Google
Zgillman profile picture
Zgillman
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
I had a great experience with Mr. Montagna, I’ve had no previous court experience and he was able to guide me very clearly. Also ended with positive results.
Posted on Google Google
Gina Briccetti profile picture
Gina Briccetti
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
I couldn't recommend a lawyer as much as I recommend Anthony. He put my best interest to the forefront of his priority, taking all aspects of my case into consideration during the duration of my trial. He had an excellent way of communicating with me, treating me like one of his family members, instead of just a client. He was super transparent with me throughout the entire timeline of my case, and prepared me for what was to be expected so nothing was a surprise. I fully trusted Anthony to fight for me and my reputation, and he displayed himself very highly during my court date. He fully committed to me for my situation, and left out no details of what the court was entailing. He recommended I go above and beyond to mend my case, and so I did. He was successful in court with me, and I would absolutely utilize him as a resource for any further needs.
Posted on Google Google
Josh Burton profile picture
Josh Burton
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Extremely helpful, clear, kind, and on top of every detail. Highly recommend!
Posted on Google Google
Paige Dyer profile picture
Paige Dyer
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Mr. Montagna was a great lawyer. Made the process very smooth and easy. Him and his paralegal were very professional and walked me through everything to help me understand my case. He worked hard get my reckless driving bumped down to an infraction which is a win in my book. 10/10 recommend if your looking for a lawyer.
Posted on Google Google
nathan wilcots profile picture
nathan wilcots
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Best lawyer I can ask for. He will not make promises but will put u at ease. I definitely recommend Anthony montagna.🔥
Posted on Google Google
Kisha Wray profile picture
Kisha Wray
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ I cannot recommend Anthony Montagna highly enough. From the start, he demonstrated an incredible command of the law and a clear strategy for my case. He personally called me multiple times to walk through our defense and made sure I understood every step of the process. In court, Mr. Montagna was calm, confident, and extremely sharp. His knowledge of the law and ability to execute the right strategy ultimately helped lead to the dismissal of my case. When he says he treats his clients like family, he truly means it. He and his team were professional, responsive, and supportive the entire time. A special thank you to Jay, the paralegal on his team, for helping keep everything organized and moving smoothly. If you ever need legal representation, don’t hesitate to call Anthony “The Man” Montagna. Follow his guidance and do what he asks you to do — he knows what he’s doing. Thank you again for turning what started as a stressful situation into a positive experience.
Posted on Google Google
Travis Langley profile picture
Travis Langley
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
Unfortunately, I got a reckless driving ticket (68mph in a 45mph zone). Looked online and searched through many lawyers to help me with my case. Montagna law was one of the firms that popped up on a simple Google search. I read all of the previous cases stated on their website and felt comfortable with my decision to hire Mr. Montagna as my lawyer to represent me. I will say it was quite expensive, but what you get in return is fantastic representation at your court hearing and I was able to get my reckless driving charge completely dismissed and didn't have to pay any court costs or anything. Ofcourse this outcome is situational per a case to case basis, but I can honestly say that Mr. Montagna will try his absolute best to get you a good outcome in court! His experience truly speaks for itself!
Posted on Google Google
Tyler Brown profile picture
Tyler Brown
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5Trustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
I cannot recommend Anthony Montagna highly enough. He represented me in a case where I was originally charged with reckless driving (96MPH in a 55MPH zone), and thanks to his skill and strategic approach in the courtroom, he was able to get the charge reduced to improper driving. That alone made a huge difference in the long-term impact on my record. What really impressed me was how he handled the judge’s initial decision to suspend my license for 10 days. Anthony didn’t just accept it, he respectfully and professionally pushed back, using his experience and knowledge of the law to advocate even harder on my behalf. Because of his persistence and expertise, the judge reconsidered. In the end, I avoided a license suspension and the maximum fine. He is not the cheapest attorney out there, but in situations like this, you truly get what you pay for. The money was absolutely well spent. He protected my driving record, my ability to work, and gave me peace of mind during a stressful situation. If you’re facing a serious traffic charge and want someone who knows how to navigate the courtroom and fight for you, Anthony Montagna is the lawyer you want in your corner. I’m extremely grateful for his help.
Get Help Now!

Take the First Step to Protect Your Well-Being

Anthony Montagna, III
Anthony Montagna meeting with a client
* Required Field

By submitting this form I acknowledge that contacting Montagna Law Defense Attorneys through this website does not create an attorney-client relationship, and any information I send is not protected by attorney-client privilege.

protected by reCAPTCHA Privacy - Terms