Washington State Security Camera Laws Guide

Security Camera Laws at a Glance

Understanding Washington State Security Camera Laws: Overview of Washington State Security Camera Laws
Security cameras have become an increasingly common feature in many communities throughout Washington. For example, many businesses use surveillance cameras outside their retail facility to deter theft or vandalism, while others use them to prevent the theft of merchandise or money from their stores, offices, etc. Moreover, some people install video cameras in their homes to capture images of visitors inside or outside, including the driveway or to monitor the activities of children. Indeed, for some, security cameras are very important from a safety perspective. But exactly what can a camera owner legally capture?
When someone installs a security camera, the homeowner or business owner usually has control over where they place their cameras. This could include the placement of indoor cameras in windows directly across from a neighboring property, along a fence, above a front door or in or near a driveway or parking lot. Similarly, many people also have outdoor cameras that line the exterior of a building. While cameras situated inside a person’s home or place of business are generally permissible under the law, restrictions are placed on the activities involved regarding the monitoring and recording by video cameras outside a property. Although it may be considered a form of self-help, security cameras can be controversial – especially if there is a perceived invasion of the privacy rights of others.
In Washington, security cameras are governed by both state and federal law. Generally, Washington has adopted the rules set forth by federal statutes and regulations that protect the rights of privacy under the constitution and the laws of the state. According to Washington’s laws of privacy, while the right to privacy is both an inherent right and a natural right founded upon the dignity and worth of human beings, its protection is found not only in Article I, § 7 of the Washington State Constitution, but also in more specific statutory provisions. It stipulates that all persons may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and therefore, allows the courts to restrain speech when it is inconsistent with essential principles of civil liberty. Washington courts have held that a person may invade the privacy of another by:
In recent years, various states have sought to clarify what aspects of privacy are protected as part of their security camera laws. In Washington, these laws are found in RCW 9.73.030 . Under this law, it states that "it is unlawful to intercept or record any conversation, transmission, or communication, including any electronic, mechanical, or other device." It further goes on to state that: (1) No person may record, use, disclose, or allow the disclosure of private conversations by the use of an instrument, device, or equipment that is readily available to the public, such as audio equipment for passive monitoring, a tape recorder, an earphone, or a listening device. . . (2) On-duty police officers, fire department personnel, and members of the armed forces may use such instruments, devices, and equipment for purposes necessary to the performance of their official duties.
While RCW 9.73.030 specifically applies to the recording of conversations or transmissions, under its provision, Washington laws also prohibit anyone from secretly recording a private conversation inside a person’s home without their consent. This means that a homeowner cannot use a hidden camera to record people indoors or facing their home without their consent. Washington’s security camera laws also prohibit placing a camera in a place where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" such as in a locker room, changing area, restroom, or inside someone’s house, etc.
Frequently dictating the outcome of whether a security camera recording was unlawful is whether the camera-owner had the consent of the victim. For example, under Washington law, RCW 9A.53.010, it states that "Any person owning or occupying commercial real property has full right to possess, control, and record video images within or upon the person’s commercial premises." In addition, an employee can consent to the videotaping of their employment area based on their conduct in the workplace, such as continuing employment after being aware of the practice. In essence, a business can legally record its employees or patrons in a public place, such as hallways, elevators, parking lots, or other common areas without notice if they permit it by acquiescence.
Nonetheless, in Washington State, just because security cameras are legal, that does not mean that individuals can’t be held liable in a civil court by those who were wrongfully captured in the video. For example, where, for instance, unlawful recordings were made of private telephone conversations, videos were used to facilitate a business’s privacy invasion, or video recordings were broadcast in violation of Washington’s voyeurism law prohibiting the invasion of privacy, etc., a person can bring a private civil suit against the perpetrator.

Home Security Camera Laws

The laws specific to security cameras in residential settings in Washington state provide many house rules regarding the placement and operation of security cameras and also give some rights to civilians against your surveillance. Washington state law directly handles the use of video cameras for privacy as well as the use of audio recorders and other audio recording devices. While everyone in Washington state should read the law themselves, here is a summary of some of the pertinent provisions:

58.08.070 video cameras in private places allow for the placement of video cameras only where the camera cannot record in private places such as bathrooms or changing rooms. 58.08.080 audio recording devices allow for use of audio recording devices except in private places about which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
59.27.050 pertains to the lack of liability in civil suits for use of video surveillance on private property by owners of cameras located thereon. The owner shall not be liable in a civil action based solely upon any of the following: (a) The capability to capture visual images of a person inside a dwelling while the video equipment is used solely for the purpose of protecting personal and real property from unlawful entry, theft, or damage; (b) The use of video equipment to video record only those persons who have knowingly entered a public place on the owner’s or tenant’s property; (c) The structural or landscaping features of a building that is subject to a restrictive covenant or other provision prohibiting the direct or indirect intrusion thereupon; or (e) An act of voyeurism or installation of a hidden video camera or other video or photographic equipment when the person is on the premises without the knowledge of the owner or tenant.

Business Security Camera Laws

Snohomish County, King County, and Seattle security footage is governed by Washington law. This includes laws that dictate when and where businesses can place surveillance cameras.
Section 9.73.030 of Washington’s Revised Code describes the circumstances in which it is legal to use audio recording devices that record persons, in addition to the equipment used for video surveillance beyond simple audio recording. This subsection even details the appropriate and legal manner of storing a recording of an oral conversation obtained legally. As an individual, you can legally tap your phone or record conversations happening in public, so long as you are not doing so in a criminal manner with malicious intent.
Depending on your business, these laws may impact your decision to place security cameras or audio recorders in areas that employees frequent. Any place that an employee has regular and reasonable access to is covered under Washington’s "invasion of privacy" laws that this section of code outlines. Businesses must notify employees if they are going to record their location using any type of video or audio recording device, and tell them where the location of these devices are, as well as how they will be used.
Establishing the notice of intent of recording along with the location of devices is the responsibility of the business. If a court orders you to remove certain recording devices because a person’s "right to privacy" is being infringed upon, you must do so. According to Washington’s security camera statutes, privacy includes:

Private vs Public Areas

Establishing the difference between spaces subject to the law is vital to understanding its effect on security camera placement. A simple example may help clarify the distinction. The bathroom and other areas surrounding toilets are typically thought of as private spaces, regardless of their location in a building, due to their intimate nature and publicized histories of peeping-tom events.
According to RCW 9.73.130(1), both homeowners and landlords have the right to place security cameras in non-public areas. Conversely, RCW 9.73.130(2) states that no one may place a surveillance device or security camera in a place of business for the purpose of acquiring information about its employees unless disclosure of the device is provided to the employees by written notice or posted sign with the number and location of surveillance devices in the workplace in generally frequented places and hours.
In a public space open to patrons, customers, tenants, employees, or the generally public ("public area") some notification and/or posting of presence is required under RCW 9.73.130(2). The general standard is that notice must be given of the use of the video surveillance equipment, but the pertinent statute does not establish the method, manner or form of the notice. Emphasis should be placed on reasonableness and fairness under RCW 9.73.130(1) and (3) (see below).
Just because the law allows you to place a security camera in a private or public space does not mean that you should in all cases. It ultimately depends on the legal risks of doing so.

Can You Tape Conversations on Security Cameras?

The recording of audio along with video puts an additional spin on Washington security camera laws. Why? Because doing so may violate Washington’s "two-party consent" law under RCW 9.73.030. This law requires that a person not intercept or record any private conversation without the consent of all persons engaged in the conversation. Thus, if a video surveillance camera has the capacity to capture audio as well, then Washington law may require that persons being surveilled consent to such recordings unless a specific exemption applies.
Washington’s two-party consent law consists of the most stringent legal requirement possible for recording conversations. Instead of a one-party consent required under federal law and certain other state statutes, Washington’s two-party consent law requires that both the speaker and the person recording the conversation (i.e., the "surveiller") give consent.
The first exemption is for interception or recording made solely of the public communications of radio or television stations. Another exemption applies to person-to-person conversations through radio equipment and telephone lines, or by radio or television broadcasts that do not require "direct input" from the listener. For example, such exemptions apply to those who simply listen to radio or television, or hear broadcasts that do not require "direct input." However , the exemption does not apply when the surveiller uses recording device connected to the phone or radio to transmit the communication.
Perhaps the most pertinent exemption that is often encountered in the security camera context is that the law does not apply to communications for which the speaker has given the surveiller express or implied consent to record. Therefore, consent telegraphed from the consent forms of the surveillance camera companies and visible placement of the surveillance cameras make it likely that the speaker has given express consent to the recording. Implied consent, on the other hand, is a more difficult question. A showing of implied consent normally requires a long-term course of conduct evidencing tacit agreement to a particular practice (and even then, there may be more to the story). In the case of a security camera, consent will likely be implied when the surveiller actively advertises his or her service and provides notice to the public that his or her security cameras are operating and being monitored (even if he or she has never actually observed any of the footage).
The Washington Supreme Court has explained that "the court must determine whether it is reasonable for the speaker to have expected [a] lack of privacy" and that the lack of privacy is "commensurate with the level of privacy that the speaker intended to abandon." Therefore, the court will consider whether it was reasonable for the speaker to expect a lack of privacy and whether that lack of privacy is commensurate with the level of privacy that the speaker intended to abandon.

Consequences of Breaking Security Camera Laws

Violating Washington state security camera law can lead to significant legal penalties for the offender. This includes both civil and criminal consequences, depending on the specific law that has been broken.
For starters, there is RCW 9A.53.050, which holds that "a person is guilty of unlawful use of a recording device when, with the intent to view, record, or broadcast an intimate person exposure in a place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy… the person makes or attempts to make a video or photographic recording of the intimate person exposure." The consequences of a conviction for violating this law can include up to 18 months in prison and/or a fine of up to $5,000.
It is important to know that, under this law, it depends not just on the person being recorded having a reasonable expectation of privacy, but also on the criminal’s expectation of privacy. So, for example, if you live on a busy street but your wife has an extra intimate bedroom, you can’t accidentally see her through your neighbor’s window and be surprised that a neighbor or stranger would essentially find this voyeurism pretty creepy.
Then there is RCW 9A.44.115, which makes it illegal for "a peeping tom" to photograph, film or otherwise record "an intimate area of another under circumstances in which the intimate area would not likely be observed." This is a gross misdemeanor, but if the offender has a previous conviction for the same or a similar crime, then the fine can be between $250 and $5,000 and the jail time can be between up to one year.
It is legal to have a generally unobtrusive security camera in a public bathroom or changing room, but not to knowingly place it in a location where a person would be using the bathroom or in a place where the person would be undressed in a public place or in their own home or condo. Similarly, if your tenant is protecting themselves from theft or vandalism by installing a security camera in their parking garage stall, and you have a security camera on the ceiling of the stall looking down at them, you could face a civil lawsuit or criminal charge due to the invasion of their intimate privacy.
Many property owners install security cameras on their properties. This is not illegal, and likely is a recommended step to take in order to secure the property and be able to provide another level of protection against thieves and other criminals.
However, it does not matter where you live—Washington state has rules that prevent you from using your security cameras in a manner that violates the rights of your tenants and any guests they invite onto the property. This includes family members, friends, corporate officers and members, and anyone else who has a reasonable and legal expectation of privacy.

Key Cases and Developments

In re F.S., 2020 WL 5524101 (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 14, 2020) is a criminal case in which a search warrant issued on the basis of evidence from, or use of, a security camera was challenged. The defendant’s motion to suppress was denied by the court below on the basis that she lacked standing to challenge the search warrant as she had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the areas where the challenged evidence was obtained. This opinion was upheld by the Washington Court of Appeals.
The case concerned a home invasion robbery that led to the suspect to be charged, but ultimately acquitted, of multiple felony offenses related to the robbery. His acquittal led him to file a lawsuit against the county based on training and supervision of law enforcement, as well as the detectives involved. The lawsuit was served on the King County Sheriff’s Office. The deputies allegedly provided discovery documents to the civil division, which led to the instantly recognizable video images from surveillance cameras at two different houses on the street where the robbery occurred. Those images were filed with the court, including the address of the house from which they were obtained. Following the filing of the lawsuit, the suspect was arrested and charged with four felonies based on the video images – Burglary in the First Degree, Assault in the Second Degree, Robbery in the First Degree, and Riot in the First Degree. The officers who prepared and executed the challenged search warrant had first consulted with a King County prosecutor to draft the warrant, then obtained and executed it.
The trial court originally denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence gathering through his arrest, which was appealed; the Washington Court of Appeals held that the defendant did in fact have standing to challenge the sufficiency of the search warrant, but held that he had no basis to challenge the sufficiency of that search warrant. The Court of Appeals, in denying the defendant’s request to suppress the images, relied heavily on the fact that the images were public and their circulation was not unconstitutional. The Court noted that "disclosing recordings of the video or photographs that were culled from them would not violate [defendant’s] privacy interest in the original videos or surveillance footage."

Security Camera Best Practice Tips

For individuals and businesses alike, understanding and complying with Washington State security camera laws is vital to being a responsible camera user. Many of the best practices for ensuring compliance are applicable to both individuals and businesses. First and foremost, be sure you have a good understanding of the law. Washington’s security camera laws are complex; professional legal assistance is often essential to compliance. Reading the law and retaining an attorney will help you recognize and circumvent legal pitfalls that you may otherwise miss. Experts also recommend that all security camera users install signage to indicate the presence of a security system. Even if your business is adequately covered by security camera laws, it’s wise to post a notice of some kind; simple signs can go a long way toward putting customers’ minds at ease. When installing a security camera that will surveil any area where people reasonably expect privacy , the notification is mandatory. You run the risk of lawsuits without signs clearly indicating that video recording is in progress in prohibited areas. If you plan to install a security camera where employees will frequently be present, it’s wise to notify them as well. Posting employee-specific signs at access points will help ensure that everyone is aware of the camera’s presence. Businesses should invest in a skip list and access management plan to ensure that employees are not illegally recording videos or images they shouldn’t be capturing. In a similar vein, companies should conduct regular audits of their security cameras to check for illegal or improper security camera use. By taking steps before installing a Washington security camera, you and your business can help ensure full legal compliance. Remember that Washington’s security camera laws are subject to change, and make sure you’re up-to-date on their provisions before installing a new security camera.