Surveillance and Privacy Law, State by State

Surveillance privacy law is state law. What's lawful in Nevada may not be lawful in California. A responsible insurance investigator knows the rules of every state they operate in, and writes them into the operational plan before going into the field. This post covers the framework, with particular attention to California and Nevada, where we do significant work.

The Core Principle: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Across all states, the framing question is simple: did the subject have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the conduct being observed? Activity in public places and in plain view from public vantage points does not carry that expectation. Activity inside a home, in a fenced backyard, or in similarly enclosed private settings does.

Recording Consent Rules

Audio recording law varies by state:

• One-party consent: one participant in the conversation consents, recording is lawful. Most U.S. states. Includes Nevada.
• Two-party (all-party) consent: all participants must consent. Includes California, Florida, and several others.

Video-only recording (no audio) of activity observable to the public is generally lawful across all states. The complication arrives when audio captures start tagging along with video.

For insurance investigation, the practical rule is straightforward. Default to video-only. Use audio only when the jurisdiction clearly allows one-party consent and the investigator is a participant, such as in a recorded statement.

California

California is among the most restrictive states for surveillance:

• Two-party consent for audio recording (Penal Code 632)
• Strict residential privacy rules: no through-window filming into a residence
• GPS tracking restrictions: Penal Code 637.7 prohibits placing a GPS device on a vehicle without consent; exceptions for vehicle owners and law enforcement
• Drone overflight rules: trespass analysis may apply at low altitudes
• Anti-paparazzi statutes (Civil Code 1708.8): intended for celebrity cases but applicable to investigators in some fact patterns
• California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA): robust civil remedies for violations

For insurance surveillance, California means: public-view video from lawful vantage points, no audio unless the investigator is a consenting participant, no GPS on subject vehicles, and careful residential positioning.

Nevada

Nevada is generally less restrictive than California:

• One-party consent for audio recording (NRS 200.650)
• No state-level anti-paparazzi or CIPA analog
• GPS tracking: generally permissible on vehicles the investigator or client owns; more restrictive on subject-owned vehicles
• Drone: FAA rules apply; state adds limited restrictions

Nevada allows tradecraft that would violate California law. That matters when a claim crosses the state line. Evidence gathered legally in Nevada may still face evidentiary challenges when offered in a California proceeding.

Florida

Florida is two-party consent for audio. It has robust privacy protections but is generally pragmatic for insurance surveillance from public vantage points.

Arizona, Oregon, Idaho, Utah

The other western states where we operate:

• Arizona: one-party consent
• Oregon: one-party consent for audio, with specific restrictions for surreptitious video in private areas
• Idaho: one-party consent
• Utah: one-party consent

All have reasonable-expectation-of-privacy limits on video surveillance that mirror the general framework.

Workers' Comp-Specific Rules

Some states have additional workers' comp-specific surveillance rules. California, for example, has case law around surveillance during IME / QME exams. Some states require notice of surveillance in discovery. These rules sit on top of the general privacy framework and need to be factored into file planning.

Trespass and Intrusion

Across all states, investigators cannot:

• Cross onto private property without permission
• Use drones at altitudes that constitute trespass
• Place tracking devices on subject-owned property without lawful basis
• Obtain information through deception that rises to "intrusion upon seclusion"

See our counter-surveillance post for the operational considerations and the sub rosa definition for the legal framing.

Practical Implications

The core discipline is straightforward. Know the law of every state you operate in. Document your legal basis for every observation. Don't cross into conduct that creates a counterclaim.

Our surveillance and activity check services operate with state-specific compliance built into every operation plan. For cross-state claims, we know which rules apply where and how to build a file that holds up wherever the matter ends up.

This post is general information about the legal framework, not legal advice. Specific questions should be directed to counsel licensed in the relevant jurisdiction.