A 35-year-old man was arrested at Austin‑Bergstrom International Airport after staff said they spotted what looked like a cellphone camera lens tucked beneath a stall partition in a staff‑only restroom. Austin police booked the man late Friday on a charge of invasive visual recording, a state‑jail felony, after investigators said an airport employee found the device in an employee bathroom during post‑flight duties.
What police allege
According to an arrest affidavit cited by KXAN, a coworker who walked into the stall saw a phone camera lens positioned under the partition and later viewed recordings that showed other men using the restroom. The affidavit states that another man in the restroom shouted, "What are you doing?" and that the suspect later told officers he had been watching porn on his phone and masturbated in the stall, saying he turned the device off as soon as someone came in. He also told investigators he might have accidentally activated the camera and then deleted the clip, according to the affidavit.
What the law says
Texas law treats invasive visual recording, defined as capturing images or video of a person in a place where they reasonably expect privacy without consent, as a criminal offense under Texas Penal Code Section 21.15. The offense is classified as a state‑jail felony and can carry penalties that include 180 days to two years in a state jail and fines of up to $10,000 under Section 12.35.
Similar cases around Texas
Hidden‑camera and invasive‑recording cases have surfaced across Central Texas in recent years, prompting felony charges and workplace reviews. For instance, the Houston Chronicle reported in 2025 on a recording device found inside a staff bathroom at an H‑E‑B clinic, and KSAT documented an arrest after a hidden camera was discovered at a San Antonio veterinary hospital that yielded hundreds of recorded clips. Together, those cases highlight how quickly allegations of covert restroom recording can escalate into felony investigations and community concern.
Next steps
Authorities say the arrest affidavit is the basis for the invasive‑visual‑recording charge and that the investigation remains ongoing. Early details about the arrest and the affidavit were first laid out by KXAN.
