Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-607 (2026)
Observation without consent
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) It is an offense for a person to knowingly spy upon, observe or otherwise view an individual, when the individual is in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, without the prior effective consent of the individual, if the viewing:
- (1) Would offend or embarrass an ordinary person if the person knew the person was being viewed; and
- (2) Was for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of the defendant.
- (b) It is not a defense to a violation of this section that the defendant was lawfully on the premises where the offense occurred.
- (c) If the person being viewed is a minor, this section is violated regardless of whether the minor or the minor's parent or guardian consented to the viewing.
- (d)
- (1) A violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
- (2) A violation of this section is a Class E felony if the victim is under thirteen (13) years of age at the time the offense is committed.
- (e) Nothing in this section shall preclude the state from electing to prosecute conduct in violation of this section under any other applicable section.
Amended by 2014 Tenn. Acts, ch. 977,s 2, eff. 7/1/2014.
Acts 2000, ch. 667, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: State of Tennessee v. Thomas Whited
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Whited, 506 S.W.3d 416 (Tenn. 2016). “” Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-607 (observation without consent), 39-13-605 (photography without consent).”
Johnson v. Braun (E.D. Tenn. 2025). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-607 (a)(1)–(2). In support of this cause of action, plaintiffs state that Braun, via cameras, knowingly spied on plaintiffs in a place where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy and without their consent [Id.”
State of Tennessee v. Ezekiel Abraham Schmaltz (Tenn. Crim. App. 2025). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-607 (a). A defendant charged under this statute may not raise as a defense that he or she “was lawfully on the premises where the offense occurred,” and “[i]f the person being viewed is a minor,” then a defendant commits the offense of observation without…”
State of Tennessee v. David Scott Hall (2019). “plained: “[I]f the nude videos of the victim, coupled only with the depiction of the defendant hiding the camera, were deemed prohibited material under the child sexual exploitation statutes, it would be difficult to distinguish the offense of production of child pornography…”
State of Tennessee v. David Allen Donton, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “” T.C.A. § 39-13-607(a)(2). However, if a trial court misapplies an enhancement or mitigating factor, said error will not remove the presumption of reasonableness from its sentencing determination.”
State of Tennessee v. Ronald Earl Cook (Tenn. Crim. App. 2013). “OPINION FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On May 11, 2011, the defendant was indicted on ten counts of criminal trespass in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-405, eleven counts of observation without consent in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated section…”
State of Tennessee v. Tarik Robertson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “” See T.C.A. § 39-13-607(a) (2006). Here, Robertson failed to show that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.”
United States v. Watkins (10th Cir. 2026). “Codified Laws § 22-21-3 ;1 Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-607 ;2 Tex. Penal Code Ann.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-607(a) — 2 cases
State of Tennessee v. Thomas Whited, 506 S.W.3d 416 (Tenn. 2016). “” Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-607 (observation without consent), 39-13-605 (photography without consent).”
State of Tennessee v. Tarik Robertson (Tenn. Crim. App. 2009). “” See T.C.A. § 39-13-607(a) (2006). Here, Robertson failed to show that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-607(a)(2) — 1 case
State of Tennessee v. David Allen Donton, Jr. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2022). “” T.C.A. § 39-13-607(a)(2). However, if a trial court misapplies an enhancement or mitigating factor, said error will not remove the presumption of reasonableness from its sentencing determination.”
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.