Hidden Mics in Backpacks? Why ‘Always-On’ Recorders Can Land Parents in Legal Trouble in Texas

Taylor Mohr
10 hours ago
6 min read

When engaging in my morning doom-scrolling on TikTok today, I came across an advertisement from a recording device I'd previously seen promoted as a note-taking tool. Turn it on, and it records the meeting or class, so you never forget what was said. That sounds fine enough, but the use I saw promoted this morning immediately set off alarm bells. This advertisement promoted turning the device on and placing it in a child's backpack to record the child's statements throughout the day, as well as what their friends, teachers, and administrators say in the child's vicinity. It even applauded the device's 30-hour battery life, confirming it could last the entire school day.

This got me thinking - these ads are likely to get people in trouble. Between that and what I've seen in the family law context for years about recordings and GPS

tracking, I decided to point out some major red flags.

Here's the summary: Gadgets like Plaud and other AI note-taking wearables promise better memory. But when they’re used to record a child’s entire school day (or the other parent in a child custody situation) Texas and federal law can turn that “note-taking” into illegal interception or unlawful tracking, with serious criminal, civil, and custody consequences.

What are these devices—and why are they suddenly everywhere?

New “AI note-takers” (e.g., Plaud Note/Note Pro) and wearables (Limitless/Rewind pendant, smart glasses) record and then auto-transcribe and summarize conversations. The latest models boast longer battery life, multi-mic arrays that pick up voices across a room, and one-tap “highlighting.” That convenience is exactly what makes them risky in everyday life: they can easily capture teachers, classmates, coworkers, and bystanders who never agreed to be recorded. Here's an example.

Here is some additional information about similar devices on the market:

Device	What It Is	Notable Capabilities (as marketed)	Red Flags
Plaud/ NotePin/ Note Pro	Small MagSafe/clip-on recorder marketed as an AI note-taker	Records in-person audio and phone calls; Pro model adds multi-mics up to ~16 ft range, auto-switching call/in-person, and “press-to-highlight” for AI summaries	Range + subtle form factor make “ambient” recording easy, especially in schools or shared spaces.
Limitless (formerly Rewind) Pendant/ AI Microphone	Wearable mic/pin that “remembers what you say”	Continuous recording/ transcription; searchable memory; “consent mode” exists but is not the default in some iterations	“Always-on” posture creates constant risk of recording non-participants without consent.
RayBan Meta Smart Glasses	Camera/mic in glasses	Hands-free photo/video, live-streaming; subtle LED “recording” indicator	Third parties may not notice the tiny LED; recent stories highlight real-time privacy/doxxing concerns.
Humane/ Other AI Pins	Lapel pins with mics/cameras + AI	Ambient capture for “assistant” features	Ongoing debate about unauthorized recording and bystander consent.

The core legal rule in Texas: one-party consent—but not for third-party wiretapping

Texas is a one-party consent state. That means it’s generally lawful to record a conversation without telling the other party to the conversation if you are a party to it (or one party consents). Secretly placing a recorder in a child’s backpack to capture other people’s conversations (ones you are not part of) likely crosses into interception of communications, which Texas criminal law and federal law prohibit.

Texas Penal Code §16.02 makes it a crime to intentionally intercept a wire/oral communication without consent of at least one party to that communication. If the parent isn’t physically present (i.e., not a “party”) and no party consented, that’s a problem.
Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §2511) likewise prohibits intentional interception unless a party consents (and there’s no criminal/tortious purpose). Again, if the recorder is not a party and no one consented, the federal statute is implicated.
Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Ch. 123 adds a civil cause of action (injunctions, damages, fees) for unlawful interception, meaning you could be sued even if no one presses criminal charges.

Bottom line: One-party consent ≠ permission to bug your child’s backpack to record teachers or other students. The one party must be in the conversation. If you’re not there, you don’t get to “be” the consenting party. Texas and federal law target third-party recording.

“But I’m the parent—I can consent for my minor, right?”

That argument is legally fragile in this context. Even putting aside school policies and student-privacy concerns, Texas’ one-party rule hinges on whether a party to the actual conversation consented. If your child is silently wearing a recorder while other people are speaking to each other (teacher ↔ other students, or other adults), your parental consent doesn’t transform you into a party to their conversation. Texas resources emphasize that both state and federal wiretap laws criminalize recordings where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, a category that can include certain school settings depending on facts, policies, and context.

Schools add another layer: policies, student privacy, and discipline

Even where criminal statutes might be debated, many districts ban undisclosed recording devices. Teachers and campuses increasingly flag smart glasses and “AI pins” as policy violations. Don’t assume “classrooms are public.” Administrative rulings and guidance vary, and Texas districts regularly treat surreptitious recording as a discipline issue. Check your district’s code of conduct and technology policies before you even think about recording.

Custody cases: why these gadgets backfire

Family courts are seeing more disputes over covert surveillance like secret audio, “always-on” pins, smart glasses, and location trackers. I get it - sometimes you believe or are concerned that bad things are being done or said at the other parent's house, but you can't prove it. The child's statements are normally hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible in court, so what else is a parent supposed to do? Truly, I understand because I've handled those cases more times than I can county, but the unfortunate reality is that these tactics often hurt the parent who deploys them:

Evidence risk: Illegally obtained audio can be excluded, and you could face civil or criminal exposure. Judges also frown on “self-help spying.”
Best-interest impact: Covert recording can be seen as undermining co-parenting, modeling poor boundaries, or creating anxiety for the child, which are all factors courts can weigh in conservatorship decisions. Texas Family Code gives courts broad discretion in temporary and final orders to protect a child’s best interest, and courts frequently view this kind of behavior as far more concerning than anything that might have been captured.
Tracking issues: Slipping an AirTag/GPS in the other parent’s car or property can violate Texas Penal Code §16.06 (unlawful installation of a tracking device on a motor vehicle you don’t own/lease). In some scenarios it may also contribute to stalking allegations.

Geo-tracking kids with the other parent: proceed with caution

Courts frequently encounter disputes over location-sharing, watch-phones, and GPS tags. Unless your order expressly authorizes it, covertly tracking the child during the other parent’s possession can invite emergency motions, injunctions, and sanctions—particularly if the tracker is installed on the other parent’s vehicle or belongings. (Again: see Penal Code §16.06 for vehicle-based tracking, and remember civil remedies can also apply.)

There are grey areas when it comes to applications like "Find My Phone" and "Life 360" on the child's devices only, especially when those devices are provided by the parent doing the tracking. In those situations, it's important to talk to an attorney with experience in this area to determine whether those kinds of applications are legal and whether they are a good idea.

Responsible alternatives

If your goal is safety or better school communication, consider options that don’t record third parties:

Ask the school about authorized tools (e.g., classroom apps, official IEP/504 accommodations for note-taking).
Use an audio recorder only when you (personally) are a party to the conversation (e.g., your own parent-teacher meeting).
For co-parenting concerns, seek court-approved solutions (neutral drop-off locations, parenting apps, modified orders addressing communication, medical/school updates, or electronic contact under Texas Family Code §153.015). If your co-parent shares your desire to track your child's location using applications like "Find my Phone" and "Life 360," getting their agreement to do so in writing is likely a very good idea

Key legal cites (Texas & federal)

Texas Penal Code §16.02 – Interception of wire/oral communications (criminal). One-party consent, but only if the recorder is a party (or a party consents).
Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Ch. 123 – Civil liability for unlawful interception (injunctions, damages, fees).
Federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §2511 – Prohibits intentional interception unless a party consents; separate federal exposure.
Texas Penal Code §16.06 – Unlawful installation of a tracking device on another’s motor vehicle (Class A misdemeanor, with limited defenses).
Texas State Law Library guide: “Audio Recording” – Plain-English overview and links to the statutes above.

Final take

“AI note-takers” like Plaud and similar wearables are marketed as productivity tools. Used carelessly, especially to record a child’s school day or the other parent, they can cross the line into illegal interception or unlawful tracking. They also tend to backfire in custody litigation. If you have safety or documentation concerns, talk to counsel about court-sanctioned solutions and policy-compliant approaches that protect your child and keep you on the right side of Texas and federal law.

A few disclaimers

This article provides general information about Texas and federal law and is not legal advice. Laws change, exceptions apply, and outcomes depend on specific facts. If you have questions about recordings, trackers, or custody orders, consult a Texas attorney about your situation.

Additionally, nothing in this blog is intended to disparage any of the devices referenced or similar devices or technologies. When used correctly and within the bounds of law and strategy, these devices can be a huge help when it comes to efficiency, communication, learning, and growth. This blog is only meant to point out potential issues that may or may not be known if the devices are misused.