Ark. Code Ann. § 5-16-101 (2026)
Crime of video voyeurism
-
It is unlawful for a person to use a camera, videotape, photo-optical, photoelectric, or other image recording device for the purpose of secretly observing, viewing, photographing, filming, or videotaping another person who is present in a residence, place of business, school, or other structure, or a room or particular location within that structure, if the other person:
- Is in a private area out of public view;
- Has a reasonable expectation of privacy; and
- Has not consented to the observation.
-
It is unlawful for a person to knowingly use an unmanned vehicle or aircraft, a camcorder, a motion picture camera, a photographic camera of any type, or other equipment that is concealed, operated in a manner to escape detection, or disguised to secretly or surreptitiously videotape, film, photograph, record, or view by electronic means another person:
- For the purpose of viewing any portion of the other person's body and for which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy;
- Without the knowledge or consent of the other person; and
- Under circumstances in which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
-
-
- A person who violates subsection (a) of this section for a first or second offense upon conviction is guilty of a Class D felony.
- A person who violates subsection (a) of this section for a third or subsequent offense upon conviction is guilty of a Class C felony.
-
- A person who violates subsection (b) of this section upon conviction is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
-
However, a person who violates subsection (b) of this section upon conviction is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor if the person:
- Distributed or transmitted the video recording, film, or photo to another person;
- Posted the video recording, film, or photo in a format accessible by another person via the internet; or
- Has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or § 5-16-102.
-
-
This section does not apply to:
- Video recording or monitoring conducted under a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction;
- Security monitoring operated by or at the direction of an occupant of a residence;
- Security monitoring operated by or at the direction of the owner or administrator of a place of business, school, or other structure;
- Security monitoring operated in a motor vehicle used for public transit;
- Security monitoring and observation associated with a correctional facility, regardless of the location of the monitoring equipment;
- Video recording or monitoring conducted by a law enforcement officer within the official scope of his or her duty; or
- Videotaping under § 12-18-615(b).
History. Acts 1999, No. 757, § 1; 2001, No. 532, § 1; 2007, No. 187, § 1; 2009, No. 330, § 1; 2009, No. 758, § 5; 2015, No. 293, § 1; 2019, No. 461, § 1.
A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 2009, No. 758, § 29, provided: “Contingent Effectiveness. This act shall not become effective unless an act of the Eighty-Seventh General Assembly repealing the Arkansas Child Maltreatment Act, § 12-12-501 et seq., and enacting a new Child Maltreatment Act, § 12-18-101 et seq., becomes effective.” The contingency in Acts 2009, No. 758, § 29, was met by Acts 2009, No. 749.
Amendments. The 2009 amendment by No. 330, in (c)(2), inserted (c)(2)(B) and redesignated the remaining text accordingly.
The 2009 amendment by No. 758 made a minor stylistic change in (d)(1), and substituted “under § 12-18-615(b)” for “pursuant to § 12-12-508(b)” in (d)(7).
The 2015 amendment inserted “an unmanned vehicle or aircraft” and “flown in a manner to escape detection” in (b).
The 2019 amendment rewrote the introductory language of (a); in the introductory language of (b), inserted “for a person”, substituted “operated” for “flown”, and substituted “another person” for “a person” at the end; rewrote (b)(1) through (b)(3); rewrote (c); and substituted “This section does not apply to” for “The provisions of this section do not apply to any of the following” in the introductory language of (d).
Research References
ALR.
Criminal prosecution of video or photographic voyeurism. 120 A.L.R.5th 337.
U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.
Lindsey P. Gustafson, Arkansas Airspace Ownership and the Challenge of Drones, 39 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 245 (2017).
Case Notes
Evidence Sufficient.
Evidence was sufficient to support the video voyeurism conviction where the victims, defendant's adopted teenage daughters, had not consented to defendant's actions and clearly had a reasonable expectation that defendant would not view, film, or photograph them behind their closed bedroom and bathroom doors in the manner he did. Devries v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 478, 588 S.W.3d 139 (2019).