Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-605 (2026)
Unlawful photography
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) It is an offense for a person to knowingly photograph, or cause to be photographed, an individual without the prior effective consent of the individual, or in the case of a minor, without the prior effective consent of the minor's parent or legal guardian, if the photograph:
- (1)
- (A)
- (i) Would offend or embarrass an ordinary person if the person appeared in the photograph; or
- (ii) Is focused on the intimate area of the individual and would be considered offensive or embarrassing by the individual; and
- (B) Was taken for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the defendant; or
- (A)
- (2)
- (A) Includes the unclothed intimate area of the individual and would be considered offensive or embarrassing by the individual;
- (B) Was taken for the purpose of offending, intimidating, embarrassing, ridiculing, or harassing the victim; and
- (C) Was disseminated by the defendant, the defendant threatened to disseminate the photograph, or the defendant permitted the dissemination of the photograph, to another person.
- (1)
- (b) As used in this section:
- (1) "Photograph" means any photograph or photographic reproduction, whether taken using digital media or conventional film, still or moving, or any videotape, live television transmission, or social media broadcast of any individual; and
- (2) "Intimate area" means the naked or clothed genitals, pubic area, anus, buttocks, or female breast of a person.
- (c) All photographs taken in violation of this section shall be confiscated and, after their use as evidence, destroyed.
- (d)
- (1)
- (A) A violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor.
- (B) A first violation of subdivision (a)(2) is a Class B misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of subdivision (a)(2) is a Class A misdemeanor.
- (2) A violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class E felony if:
- (A) The defendant disseminates or permits the dissemination of the photograph to any other person; or
- (B) The victim of the offense is under thirteen (13) years of age at the time of the offense.
- (3) A violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class D felony if:
- (A) The defendant disseminates or permits the dissemination of the photograph to any other person; and
- (B) The victim of the offense is under thirteen (13) years of age at the time of the offense.
- (1)
- (e) Nothing in this section shall preclude the state from electing to prosecute conduct in violation of this section under any other applicable section, including chapter 17, parts 9 and 10 of this title.
- (f) In addition to the punishment provided for a person who commits the misdemeanor unlawful photographing pursuant to subdivision (a)(1), the trial judge may order, after taking into account the facts and circumstances surrounding the offense, including the offense for which the person was originally charged and whether the conviction was the result of a plea bargain agreement, that the person be required to register as a sexual offender pursuant to the Tennessee Sexual Offender and Violent Sexual Offender Registration, Verification and Tracking Act of 2004, compiled in title 40, chapter 39, part 2.
Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 920, Secs.s2, s3, s4, s5 eff. 7/1/2022.
Amended by 2022 Tenn. Acts, ch. 920, s 1, eff. 7/1/2022.
Amended by 2021 Tenn. Acts, ch. 354, s 1, eff. 7/1/2021.
Amended by 2018 Tenn. Acts, ch. 866, s 1, eff. 7/1/2018.
Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 941, s 1, eff. 7/1/2016.
Amended by 2014 Tenn. Acts, ch. 977,s 1, eff. 7/1/2014.
Acts 1994, ch. 970, § 2; 1997 , ch. 469, §§ 1, 2; 2000, ch. 667, § 2; 2010 , ch. 1124, §§ 1, 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. Thomas Whited, 506 S.W.3d 416 (Tenn. 2016).
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Whited, 506 S.W.3d 416 (Tenn. 2016). “6 See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-605 (a). This left for trial a total of twenty-four counts—nine counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation, one count of attempted especially aggravated sexual exploitation, and fourteen counts of observation without consent.”
Savoy v. United States, 604 F.3d 929 (6th Cir. 2010). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-605. The district court found that “the tapes were made using a hidden camera, and the females were not aware that they were being taped in various stages of nudity and/or performing sex acts.”
State of Tennessee v. David Eric Lambert (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020). “E2018-02282-CCA-R3-CD The defendant, David Eric Lambert, appeals his Sullivan County Criminal Court jury conviction of unlawful photography, see T.C.A. § 39-13-605, arguing that (1) Code section 39-13-605 is unconstitutionally vague, (2) the trial court erred by denying his…”
State of Tennessee v. David Eric Lambert (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020). “Constitutionality of T.C.A. § 39-13-605 At the time of the offense in this case, T.”
State of Tennessee v. David Eric Lambert (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020). “(b) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, “photograph” means any photograph or photographic reproduction, still or moving, or any videotape or live television transmission of any individual.”
State of Tennessee v. Andrew G. Walsh (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). “” T.C.A. § 39-13-605(f). As we concluded in Ryan Broadrick by interpreting the similar statutory language found in Section 39-13- 506(d)(2)(B), a trial court may also consider “‘any additional relevant factors’ such as a psychosexual evaluation, a presentence report, and any…”
State of Tennessee v. Brandon Robert Vandenburg (2019). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-605 (a)(1)-(2) (2013).”
Johnson v. Braun (E.D. Tenn. 2025). “§ 2511 ; (2) unlawful photographing in violation of privacy, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-605; (3) observation without consent, in violation of § Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-605; (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (5) intentional infliction…”
State of Tennessee v. Keith Douglas Garrett (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-605 (d) (2025). We consider the limitations period as applied to the statute in effect at the time the offenses were committed.”
State of Tennessee v. Richard Alexander Herrea (Tenn. Crim. App. 2011). “served the following question for our review: If, as with the facts of the case at bar, the defendant is suspected by law enforcement of taking photographs with a camera held under the skirt or shorts of an unsuspecting woman, and law enforcement proceeds to attempt to obtain…”
State of Tennessee v. Jesse B. Gilliland (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “Appellant was originally charged with the crime of unlawful photography in violation of privacy, found at Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-605. Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-605(a) states: (a) It is an offense for a person to knowingly photograph, or cause to be…”
Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Bigger Dream, LLC d/b/a QNTM Fit Life; Nikko Glasper; Johnny Wilkins; 114 RE Inv. LLC; Nichoel Ryner; Honor Tjornhom; Anna Leduc; Bailey Payne-Jones; Claudia Barhorst; Katherine McCool; Alison Brown; Melanie Miller; Deandra Stinson; Lindsey Platt; & Tana Whited (M.D. Tenn. 2026). “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-605 . Glasper’s erotic and carnal behavior towards females constitute “abuse” under the Abuse or Molestation Coverage.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-605(a) — 3 cases
State of Tennessee v. David Eric Lambert (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020). “E2018-02282-CCA-R3-CD The defendant, David Eric Lambert, appeals his Sullivan County Criminal Court jury conviction of unlawful photography, see T.C.A. § 39-13-605, arguing that (1) Code section 39-13-605 is unconstitutionally vague, (2) the trial court erred by denying his…”
State of Tennessee v. David Eric Lambert (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020). “Constitutionality of T.C.A. § 39-13-605 At the time of the offense in this case, T.”
State of Tennessee v. Jesse B. Gilliland (Tenn. Crim. App. 2010). “Appellant was originally charged with the crime of unlawful photography in violation of privacy, found at Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-605. Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-605(a) states: (a) It is an offense for a person to knowingly photograph, or cause to be…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-605(a)(1) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. David Eric Lambert (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020). “Constitutionality of T.C.A. § 39-13-605 At the time of the offense in this case, T.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-605(a)(1)(B) — 1 case
Johnson v. Braun (E.D. Tenn. 2025). “§ 2511 ; (2) unlawful photographing in violation of privacy, in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-605; (3) observation without consent, in violation of § Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-605; (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress; (5) intentional infliction…”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-605(a)(2) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Whited, 506 S.W.3d 416 (Tenn. 2016). “6 See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-605 (a). This left for trial a total of twenty-four counts—nine counts of especially aggravated sexual exploitation, one count of attempted especially aggravated sexual exploitation, and fourteen counts of observation without consent.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-605(b) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. David Eric Lambert (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020). “Constitutionality of T.C.A. § 39-13-605 At the time of the offense in this case, T.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-605(b)(2) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. David Eric Lambert (Tenn. Crim. App. 2020). “Constitutionality of T.C.A. § 39-13-605 At the time of the offense in this case, T.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-605(f) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Andrew G. Walsh (Tenn. Crim. App. 2021). “” T.C.A. § 39-13-605(f). As we concluded in Ryan Broadrick by interpreting the similar statutory language found in Section 39-13- 506(d)(2)(B), a trial court may also consider “‘any additional relevant factors’ such as a psychosexual evaluation, a presentence report, and any…”
State of Tennessee v. Keith Douglas Garrett (Tenn. Crim. App. 2026). “See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-605 (d) (2025). We consider the limitations period as applied to the statute in effect at the time the offenses were committed.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.