50-State Surveys › Call and Conversation Recording Consent Requirements by State
Call and Conversation Recording Consent Requirements by State
When may a participant record a private telephone call or in-person conversation under state law, whose consent is required, and what criminal or civil consequences can apply?
51 of 51 jurisdictions verified
every entry statute-checked, oldest 2026-07-20
What this survey covers
This survey asks a narrow, practical question: when a person who is actually part of a private call or conversation may record its audio. It compares whose consent is required, what makes the communication protected, which media the statute covers, major exceptions, and the criminal, civil, and evidence consequences of getting the rule wrong.
It does not turn every form of interception into the same problem. A third party tapping a line, a police officer using court-authorized surveillance, a business recording regulated customer-service calls, and a participant using a phone's recorder can fall under different provisions even within one chapter.
Why a one-party or all-party map is not enough
California Penal Code § 632 requires all-party consent only for a "confidential communication," defined by circumstances reasonably indicating that a party wants the communication confined to the participants. The same section excludes public gatherings, proceedings open to the public, and other settings where recording or overhearing is reasonably expected. A separate section, § 632.7, applies an all-party rule to listed cellular, cordless, and landline combinations without repeating § 632's confidentiality definition. Official § 632 and official § 632.7.
New York uses a different architecture. Penal Law § 250.00 defines telephone wiretapping as recording by someone other than a sender or receiver without either one's consent, and mechanical overhearing as recording by a person not present without at least one party's consent. Those definitions put ordinary participant recording outside the core eavesdropping offense in § 250.05. Official § 250.00 and official § 250.05.
Illinois shows why privacy and method belong in their own columns. Article 14 defines a private conversation through an intent to keep it private under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation, defines "surreptitious" as stealth, deception, secrecy, or concealment, and applies its participant rule to surreptitious recording without all other parties' consent. Official 720 ILCS 5/14-1 and official 720 ILCS 5/14-2.
Florida adds another combination: an oral communication is protected only when the speaker exhibits a justified expectation against interception, while § 934.03(2)(d) authorizes interception when all parties have given prior consent. Official § 934.02 and official § 934.03.
How to read the table
Start with the participant-consent rule, then immediately read the privacy trigger and medium columns. Together they show whether the short consent rule actually reaches this call or conversation. The method and exceptions columns then show what valid consent looks like and whether a narrow participant-facing exception applies.
Read criminal exposure separately from civil and evidence consequences. A state may authorize statutory damages or exclude an unlawful recording without using the same elements or exceptions for every remedy.
For an interstate call, no row promises that the law of the recorder's location controls. Federal law generally permits a private person who is a party, or has one party's prior consent, to intercept unless the purpose is to commit a criminal or tortious act, but state law may be stricter. Official 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). When participants or the recording device touch multiple jurisdictions, consent from everyone is the prudent baseline while the applicable law remains unresolved.
Get this answered for your state
This survey compares every state side by side. Ezel applies your state's law to your specific situation and answers with citations to the statutes.
Scroll sideways in the table to see all columns →
| State | Governing law and covered recording | Whose consent a participant needs | Privacy, confidentiality, or secrecy trigger | Telephone, in-person, and electronic coverage | How consent or notice is given | Major participant-facing exceptions | Criminal classification and penalty | Civil remedy and evidence effect | Interstate and federal boundary |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama verified 2026-07-20 | Ala. Code §§ 13A-11-30 to 13A-11-38 (Offenses Against Privacy). Section 13A-11-31 makes it a crime to intentionally use any device to 'eavesdrop,' which § 13A-11-30(1) defines as overhearing, recording, amplifying, or transmitting part of the 'private communication of others without the consent of at least one' participant. |
One-party consent. Eavesdropping requires the absence of consent of 'at least one of the persons engaged in the communication' (§ 13A-11-30(1)); a participant who records supplies that consent, so recording your own call or conversation is not criminal eavesdropping. |
Only a 'private communication' is covered. The Code defines a 'private place' (§ 13A-11-30(2)) as one where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance, but does not separately define 'private communication'; whether a specific conversation qualifies is a fact-and-case-law question. |
One rule covers all media. The eavesdropping definition reaches overhearing, recording, amplifying, or transmitting any private communication, so face-to-face speech and telephone audio are treated the same; the statute draws no landline, cellular, or cordless distinctions. |
No script, tone, written form, or warning is prescribed. A participant's own consent meets the 'consent of at least one' requirement, and nothing requires notifying or getting agreement from the other parties before recording. |
The statutory defenses in § 13A-11-36 cover a peace officer in lawful performance of duties, a communications common carrier's necessary service activity, and good-faith reliance on a lawful court order or legislative authorization. There is no separate participant-evidence-gathering exception, and the defendant bears the burden of injecting a defense. |
Criminal eavesdropping is a Class A misdemeanor (§ 13A-11-31(b)): up to one year in the county jail (§ 13A-5-7(a)(1)) and a fine up to $6,000 (§ 13A-5-12(a)(1)). Divulging illegally obtained information is a separate Class B misdemeanor (§ 13A-11-35) — up to six months and a $3,000 fine. |
The privacy article (§§ 13A-11-30 to 13A-11-38) creates no private civil cause of action and no statutory suppression rule for eavesdropping. A victim's civil recovery and any exclusion of an unlawful recording depend on general Alabama tort and evidence law, not on this article. |
Federal law likewise permits one-party participant recording unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)), matching Alabama's one-party rule. Neither law decides which state's law governs a call that crosses state lines — get every participant's consent when a stricter state may apply. |
| Alaska verified 2026-07-20 | AS 42.20.300 prohibits intentionally intercepting a private oral, wire, or electronic communication without party authorization and restricts later use/publication. AS 42.20.310 separately prohibits device-assisted hearing or recording of an oral conversation without one party's consent. |
One-party consent. A participant supplies the party consent required by AS 42.20.310; a party may authorize interception under AS 42.20.300(b). A 2025-2026 all-party proposal (HB 86/SB 85) died at legislative adjournment. |
Section 42.20.310's oral-conversation recording rule states no privacy qualifier. Section 42.20.300 protects a 'private communication,' defined as oral, wire, or electronic communication made with a reasonable expectation against interception (§ 42.20.390(11)). |
The § 42.20.310 device definition expressly covers oral conversation in person, by telephone, or by any other means. Sections 42.20.300 and .390 separately cover private oral, wire, and electronic communications; electronic expressly includes cellular and cordless telephone communications. |
Current law requires consent or authorization from a party but prescribes no writing, advance timing, script, warning tone, periodic notice, or continued-participation rule (§§ 42.20.300-.310). |
Public radio/wireless communications; ordinary-course carrier work; incidental conversations at public broadcasts; emergency-service communications; inadvertent party-line interception; specified peace-officer activity; and limited parent interception of a minor's private communication, excluding attorney, guardian-ad-litem, and custody-investigator communications (§ 42.20.320). |
A violation of §§ 42.20.300 or .310 is a Class A misdemeanor (§ 42.20.330): up to 1 year of imprisonment and, for an individual, a fine up to $25,000 (§§ 12.55.135(a), 12.55.035(b)(5)). |
AS 42.20.300-.390 contains no express private-damages action or general suppression section. The parent-minor exception specifically permits qualifying evidence to be considered or admitted subject to evidence rules and, in listed settings, a best-interests finding (§ 42.20.320(a)(9)). |
Alaska states no private interstate choice-of-law rule here. Federal law generally permits participant or one-party recording unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); Alaska's current rule is also one-party, but another connected state may be stricter, so all-party consent is the prudent baseline. |
| Arizona verified 2026-07-20 | Arizona's interception rules are in A.R.S. Title 13, chapter 30. Section 13-3005(A) makes specified intentional nonparty interception a class 5 felony. 'Intercept' means acquiring contents through an electronic, mechanical, or other device (§ 13-3001(7)); § 13-3012(9) separately exempts interception with a party's consent or the consent of a person present. |
One-party consent. A person who is a party to a wire or electronic communication, or present for an in-person conversation, is outside § 13-3005(A)(1)–(2)'s nonparty offense. Section 13-3012(9) also expressly exempts interception effected with a party's consent or a present person's consent. |
An in-person 'oral communication' is protected only when the speaker exhibits an expectation against interception under circumstances justifying it (§ 13-3001(8)). Section 13-3005(A)(2) also frames the offense as intercepting a conversation or discussion at which the interceptor is not present. The wire- and electronic-communication rules do not repeat the oral-communication expectation test. |
Section 13-3005 distinguishes wire or electronic communications from face-to-face conversations. A wire communication is a human-voice transfer carried wholly or partly through wire, cable, or like transmission facilities (§ 13-3001(14)); electronic communication includes transmitted signs, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence but excludes wire and oral communications (§ 13-3001(4)); protected spoken communication is oral (§ 13-3001(8)). |
A participant relies on being a party or present and needs no additional announcement or consent. For a nonparticipant, § 13-3005(A) requires consent from a sender or receiver of a wire or electronic communication, or a party to an in-person conversation; § 13-3012(9) prescribes no writing, script, warning tone, or duration. |
Beyond one-party consent, § 13-3012 exempts listed public and distress radio communications, electronic communications configured as readily accessible to the public, and oral interception by a child-monitoring device (§ 13-3012(6), (12), (14)). Arizona's participant exemption does not state the federal criminal-or-tortious-purpose limit, but separate criminal and civil laws can still govern harmful conduct or later use. |
Intentional nonparty interception without the required consent is a class 5 felony (§ 13-3005(A)). For a first nondangerous felony, § 13-702(D) supplies mitigated, minimum, presumptive, maximum, and aggravated terms of 0.5, 0.75, 1.5, 2, and 2.5 years. A felony fine may be up to $150,000 (§ 13-801(A)). |
A person whose communication is intentionally intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation may seek equitable or declaratory relief; the greatest of actual damages plus profits, $100 per day, or $10,000; punitive damages; fees; and costs, within a one-year discovery period (A.R.S. § 12-731). Section 13-3013 lists good-faith defenses. The participant provisions prescribe no automatic exclusion rule; § 13-3015(C)'s express evidence bar is limited to failed or denied emergency law-enforcement interceptions. |
Federal law permits a private participant, or a person with one party's prior consent, to intercept unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). Arizona's one-party exemption does not repeat that purpose clause. A stricter state's law may still matter on an interstate call, and this survey does not decide choice of law; obtaining every participant's consent is the prudent baseline when jurisdictions may differ. |
| Arkansas verified 2026-07-20 | Ark. Code § 5-60-120: intercepting a wire, landline, oral, telephonic, or wireless communication and recording or possessing the recording; party status or one party's prior consent is the safe harbor. |
One-party consent. A participant may record; a nonparticipant may intercept and record with one party's prior consent (Ark. Code § 5-60-120(a)). |
No express privacy, confidentiality, secrecy, or reasonable-expectation qualifier in § 5-60-120(a); the text turns on the covered communication and party/consent status. No public-place exclusion is stated. |
Expressly covers wire, landline, oral, telephonic, and wireless communications, including the cellular/cordless expansion enacted in 2001. The section does not separately define texts, email, stored data, or a general 'electronic communication' category. |
A participant needs no notice or additional consent. For a nonparticipant, one party must give prior consent; no written form, script, audible tone, or continued-participation rule is prescribed (§ 5-60-120(a)). |
Acts under color of law; utility/telecommunications assistance and ordinary-course provider operations; telecommunications services; FCC-licensed amateur radio; police-scanner interception for pleasure; and specified court orders for stored records, pen registers, and trap-and-trace devices (§ 5-60-120(c)-(g)). |
Class A misdemeanor: up to 1 year in jail and a possible fine up to $2,500 (Ark. Code §§ 5-60-120(b), 5-4-401(b)(1), 5-4-201(b)(1)). |
§ 5-60-120 creates no express private cause of action or statutory damages. The Arkansas Supreme Court held in King v. State that the section does not itself make an unlawful private recording inadmissible; other federal or evidentiary rules may still matter. |
Arkansas states no special interstate or recorder-location rule in § 5-60-120. Federal law likewise generally allows a participant or one party's prior consent unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); a stricter connected state's law may still apply, so all-party consent is the prudent baseline. |
| California verified 2026-07-20 | Cal. Penal Code §§ 632 and 632.7: intentional participant recording of confidential conversations and specified cellular, cordless, or landline communications without all-party consent. |
All-party consent for covered recording: every party must consent (§§ 632(a), 632.7(a)). |
§ 632 applies only to a 'confidential communication'—circumstances reasonably indicating that any party wants it confined to the participants; public or reasonably recordable settings are excluded. § 632.7 does not repeat that qualifier. |
§ 632 covers confidential in-person speech and communications by telephone or other device except radio. § 632.7 separately lists cellular-cellular, cellular-landline, cordless-cordless, cordless-landline, and cordless-cellular communications and defines communication to include voice, data, and image. |
No general script, tone, or written form is prescribed. § 632 excludes a recorder known by all parties from its definition of 'person'; for a § 632.7 call, obtain clear consent from every party before recording. |
One party may record to obtain evidence reasonably believed related to extortion, kidnapping, bribery, a violent felony, human trafficking, harassing calls, or domestic violence (§ 633.5). A victim seeking a domestic-violence restraining order has additional court-use routes (§ 633.6). |
Alternative misdemeanor/felony punishment: § 632 allows up to $2,500 per violation and § 632.7 up to $2,500, with up to 1 year in county jail or 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in state prison; a qualifying prior raises the fine ceiling to $10,000 (§§ 17–18, 632(a), 632.7(a)). |
Greater of $5,000 per violation or 3× actual damages, plus injunctive relief; actual damages are not required (§ 637.2). A § 632 recording is generally inadmissible, subject to the statute's proof-of-violation and § 633.5 exceptions. |
Federal law generally permits a private participant to record with one-party prior consent unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); California can be stricter. No recorder-location shortcut resolves an interstate call—use all-party consent as the prudent baseline. |
| Colorado verified 2026-07-20 | C.R.S. §§ 18-9-303 and 18-9-304 separately prohibit outsider wiretapping of telephone, telegraph, or electronic communications and outsider eavesdropping on a conversation or discussion; both also reach knowing use or disclosure of unlawfully obtained contents |
Ordinary participant recording falls outside the core offenses: § 18-9-303 begins with a person who is not a sender or intended receiver, and § 18-9-304 begins with a person not visibly present. An outsider generally needs at least one sender's, receiver's, or principal party's consent |
Section 18-9-304 uses 'conversation or discussion' without an express privacy qualifier. Although § 18-9-301(8) defines 'oral communication' through a justified belief against interception, the eavesdropping offense does not use that defined term |
Section 18-9-303 names telephone, telegraph, and electronic communications; § 18-9-304 covers an in-person conversation or discussion. The electronic definition includes transmitted sounds/data affecting interstate or foreign commerce and excludes wire and oral communications (§ 18-9-301(3.3)) |
Participant status itself removes an ordinary sender/intended receiver or visibly present participant from the offense wording. For an outsider, the statutes require consent of either sender/receiver or at least one principal party but prescribe no writing, script, warning tone, or express timing formula |
Affirmative defenses include news-media tools at a public and newsworthy event; security or business devices on the user's own premises with reasonable public notice; provider operations; public-access electronic/radio communications; and harmful-interference tracing (§ 18-9-305) |
Wiretapping and eavesdropping are class 2 misdemeanors (§§ 18-9-303(2), 18-9-304(2)): for an offense committed on or after March 1, 2022, up to 120 days' imprisonment, a fine up to $750, or both (§ 18-1.3-501(1)(a.5)) |
Sections 18-9-302–305 create no express private damages measure; § 18-9-305(4) instead supplies a good-faith-order defense to civil actions brought under other Colorado law. A narrow cordless-phone rule permits specified prosecutorial use only with reliability and corroborating probable cause (§ 18-9-305(4.9)) |
Federal law permits participant or one-party-consented recording unless its purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); Colorado's participant exclusions and outsider unlawful-purpose clauses are structured differently. Choice of law remains fact-specific, so all-party consent is the prudent interstate baseline |
| Connecticut verified 2026-07-20 | Section 52-570d regulates recording an oral private telephonic communication and creates a civil action. Sections 53a-187 and 53a-189 separately make unlawful outsider wiretapping or mechanical overhearing a Class D felony |
Mixed by medium. Private telephone: use all-party prior consent, recorded verbal notice, or a recurring warning tone (§ 52-570d(a)). In person: a participant is outside 'mechanical overhearing' because that definition requires a recorder not present (§ 53a-187(a)(2)) |
The telephone civil rule applies to an 'oral private telephonic communication' but does not further define private. The criminal definitions instead turn on outsider status and lack of sender/receiver or one-party consent, not an express expectation-of-privacy test (§§ 52-570d(a), 53a-187(a)) |
Section 52-570d is telephonic only. Criminal 'wiretapping' expressly covers telephonic, telegraphic, and cellular-radio-telephone communications; 'mechanical overhearing' covers a conversation or discussion recorded by a person not present (§ 53a-187(a)) |
Three telephone methods: all parties' prior consent, in writing or obtained at the start and made part of the recording; verbal notice recorded at the beginning; or an automatic distinct tone repeated about every 15 seconds (§ 52-570d(a)) |
The telephone method rule does not apply when the recipient records threats of extortion, bodily harm, or other unlawful requests or demands, or a call that occurs repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour; official and emergency exceptions also apply (§ 52-570d(b)) |
An ordinary participant is not the outsider described by § 53a-187, and § 52-570d states a civil remedy rather than a crime. Criminal eavesdropping is a Class D felony punishable by up to 5 years and a fine up to $5,000 (§§ 53a-189, 53a-35a(8), 53a-41(4)) |
A person aggrieved by an unlawful private-telephone recording may recover damages, costs, and a reasonable attorney fee; no damages formula is stated (§ 52-570d(c)). Section 53a-187(b) says the criminal provisions do not affect admissibility outside prosecutions for eavesdropping or tampering |
Federal law generally permits participant or one-party-consented recording unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); Connecticut adds civil telephone consent-or-notice methods. All-party consent is the prudent interstate baseline |
| Delaware verified 2026-07-20 | 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(4) prohibits intercepting, without all parties' consent, a message by telephone, telegraph, letter, or another means of communicating privately, including private conversation. Chapter 24 separately regulates intentional interception, disclosure, and use of wire, oral, and electronic communications (§ 2402). |
All parties for a private call or conversation under § 1335(a)(4). Section 2402(c)(4) separately protects a participant or one party's prior consent from the Chapter 24 offense unless the purpose is criminal or tortious, but compliance with that one-party safe harbor alone does not satisfy § 1335. |
Section 1335(a)(4) applies to a message sent by a means of 'communicating privately,' expressly including private conversation. Chapter 24 defines oral communication through an exhibited and justified expectation against interception (§ 2401(13)); wire/electronic communications have no parallel expectation qualifier. |
Section 1335(a)(4) expressly names telephone, telegraph, letter, other private means, and private conversation. Chapter 24 covers wire, oral, and electronic communications; electronic includes signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence transferred by an electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photooptical system (§ 2401). |
For § 1335 compliance, obtain every party's consent; the section prescribes no advance timing, writing, script, audible tone, or continued-participation rule. Chapter 24 requires prior consent when a nonparticipant relies on one party, while a participant may rely on party status (§ 2402(c)(4)). |
Regularly installed party-line/extension equipment; telephone-company or subscriber acts enforcing facility rules; carrier construction, maintenance, and operation; subpoena responses; specified police acts (§ 1335(b)); plus provider ordinary-course service/property protection, public electronic/radio communications, and emergency-center participation under § 2402(c). |
A private-message interception without all parties' consent is a Class A misdemeanor: up to 1 year at Level V and a fine up to $2,300 (§§ 1335(c), 4206(a)). A Chapter 24 interception outside § 2402(c)(4) is a Class E felony: up to 5 years at Level V and a fine up to $10,000 (§§ 2402(b), 4205(b)(5)). |
Section 1335 states no express private damages action. If the conduct also violates Chapter 24, § 2409 provides actual damages with a $100/day or $1,000 floor, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs, with a good-faith defense; § 2407(i) permits suppression of an unlawful interception and derivatives. |
Delaware states no private interstate choice-of-law rule. Federal law generally permits participant or one-party recording unless the purpose is criminal or tortious, matching the Chapter 24 safe harbor but not Delaware's stricter § 1335 all-party rule (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). For multistate calls, all-party consent is the prudent baseline. |
| District of Columbia verified 2026-07-20 | D.C. Code § 23-542, in the wire-interception subchapter (§§ 23-541 to 23-556), makes it a crime to willfully intercept, disclose, or use any wire or oral communication; definitions are in § 23-541. The statute reaches wire (telephone) and oral (in-person) communications, not a separate electronic-communication category. |
One party. Section 23-542(b)(3) makes it lawful for a person not acting under color of law to intercept 'where such person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties ... has given prior consent,' unless the purpose is a criminal, tortious, or other injurious act. A participant may record. |
An 'oral communication' is protected only when 'uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying the expectation' (§ 23-541(2)); public speech with no reasonable expectation of privacy is outside it. A telephone (wire) communication carries no such qualifier. |
The one-party rule applies to wire (telephone) and oral (in-person) communications. Unlike federal law, § 23-542 has no separate 'electronic communication' category, so text, email, and data transfers are outside it. The D.C. Court of Appeals has applied the statute to cellphone calls (Thomas v. United States, 2017). |
No form of consent is prescribed—no tone, script, or written notice. A participant supplies consent by being a party; if you rely on someone else's agreement instead, § 23-542(b)(3) requires that party's 'prior consent.' |
Besides the participant/one-party-consent exception, § 23-542(b) excepts a switchboard operator or common carrier acting in the normal course (no service observing or random monitoring except quality checks) and a color-of-law party or consented interception. Section 23-542(a) also frees disclosure or use of contents that have 'become common knowledge or public information.' |
A violation is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years, a fine, or both (§ 23-542). Because the offense carries a five-year maximum, the fine ceiling under the D.C. proportional-fine schedule is $12,500 (§ 22-3571.01(b)(6)); a term over one year is a felony-grade penalty. |
Section 23-554 gives a person whose communication is unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, or used a civil action for actual damages but not less than $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher, plus punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The District expressly waives governmental immunity for these claims (§ 23-554(c)). A lawful one-party recording is not a violation, so neither the crime nor the damages remedy reaches it. |
Federal law lets a private party record with one party's prior consent unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); the District is also one-party but adds an 'other injurious act' limit. The District borders Maryland, an all-party-consent state, so a call across that line can require all-party consent—get everyone's consent as the prudent baseline. |
| Florida verified 2026-07-20 | Florida Security of Communications Act, Fla. Stat. ch. 934. Section 934.03(1) makes it an offense to intentionally intercept, disclose, or use any wire, oral, or electronic communication, except as the chapter allows. 'Intercept' means the aural or other acquisition of a communication's contents through a device (§ 934.02(3)). The Act governs a participant recording a call or conversation as well as an outside interceptor; a participant is lawful only through the all-party-consent exception below. |
All-party consent. Section 934.03(2)(d) makes it lawful to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication only 'when all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.' A participant may not record a protected communication without every party's consent; the recording party's own consent is not enough. 'All parties' can exceed two people. |
The trigger depends on the medium. An 'oral communication' (in-person speech) is protected only when 'uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation,' and it excludes any 'public oral communication uttered at a public meeting' (§ 934.02(2)). A 'wire communication' (telephone audio carried through carrier facilities) has no expectation qualifier and is protected regardless. So a telephone call is covered even where an in-person exchange in a non-private setting would not be. |
The all-party rule is the same for telephone calls and face-to-face speech. A 'wire communication' is an aural transfer made 'in whole or in part' through carrier wire, cable, or like facilities (§ 934.02(1)), reaching landline and cellular calls; in-person talk is an 'oral communication'; and audio carried by an electronic system is an 'electronic communication' (§ 934.02(12)). Stored communications and tone-only paging and tracking-device signals are handled separately and are outside this ordinary audio question. |
The statute requires prior consent of all parties but prescribes no particular form — no specified tone, script, written consent, or duration. Consent must be given 'prior' to the interception (§ 934.03(2)(d)); for a business or service call, a clear opening notice that the call is being recorded, to which a party knowingly continues, is the usual way that consent is shown. Do not assume a beep tone alone, or notice given only after recording begins, satisfies the all-party requirement for a private call. |
Florida provides no general one-party 'evidence of a crime' exception for a private person — unlike many states, a victim generally may not secretly record a threatening private call and rely on a self-help carve-out. The chapter's exceptions run mainly to providers and law enforcement: communication common carriers acting in the ordinary course of business, operators, and interceptions under a court order or the statutory investigative provisions. Those law-enforcement and provider exceptions are outside an ordinary participant's use. |
A violation of § 934.03(1) is a felony of the third degree (§ 934.03(4)(a)), punishable by up to 5 years' imprisonment (§ 775.082(3)(e)) and a fine up to $5,000 (§ 775.083(1)(c)). A narrow first-offense carve-out reduces the offense to a first-degree misdemeanor only where it is not for a tortious, illegal, or commercial-gain purpose and involves specified radio/scanner communications (§ 934.03(4)(b)) — it does not cover secretly recording an ordinary private call or conversation. |
Civil: a person whose communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of §§ 934.03–934.09 has a civil action for equitable relief; actual damages 'but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher'; punitive damages; and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs (§ 934.10). Evidence: § 934.06 bars using an unlawfully intercepted wire or oral communication, or evidence derived from it, in any trial, hearing, or proceeding, except in a prosecution for the criminal interception itself. |
Federal law permits a private party (or a nonparticipant with one party's consent) to record unless the purpose is a criminal or tortious act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) — a permissive floor. Florida's all-party rule is stricter and Florida courts apply chapter 934 to protect a Florida participant's private communication even where a one-party state or federal law would allow one-party recording. This survey does not decide which state's law governs an interstate call; when Florida may apply, obtaining every participant's consent is the prudent baseline. |
| Georgia verified 2026-07-20 | Georgia's Wiretapping, Eavesdropping, Surveillance, and Related Offenses provisions are O.C.G.A. §§ 16-11-60–16-11-70. Section 16-11-62(1) prohibits clandestinely and intentionally overhearing, transmitting, or recording another's private conversation originating in a private place; § 16-11-62(4) separately prohibits intentionally and secretly intercepting a private telephone or other message. Section 16-11-66(a) supplies the participant exception. |
One-party consent. Section 16-11-66(a) says § 16-11-62 does not prohibit interception when the recorder is a party to the wire, oral, or electronic communication or one party gave prior consent. A participant's own involvement is enough; the other parties need not consent or know. |
For face-to-face audio under § 16-11-62(1), the conversation must be private, originate in a 'private place,' and be recorded clandestinely and intentionally. A private place is one where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (§ 16-11-60(3)). The telephone-message branch instead prohibits intentional, secret interception of a message sent by telephone or another means of private communication (§ 16-11-62(4)). |
The participant exception expressly reaches wire, oral, and electronic communications (§ 16-11-66(a)). Section 16-11-62(1) addresses private in-person conversations; § 16-11-62(4) names telephone, telegraph, letter, and other private communications. Visual recording is a different branch: § 16-11-62(2) generally requires every observed person's consent for device-aided observation, photography, or recording of activities in a private place and out of public view, subject to listed exceptions; this cell addresses audio, not hidden-camera images. |
A participant needs no separate consent or notice because § 16-11-66(a) turns on being a party. A nonparticipant needs one party's prior consent. The subsection prescribes no writing, announcement, script, warning tone, or duration. |
Besides the general party/one-party rule, § 16-11-66(d) lets a parent or guardian monitor a minor child's telephone conversation on an extension phone in the family home, or the child's electronic or other communications from within the home, to protect the child's welfare. It also permits limited disclosure to a prosecutor or law-enforcement officer when the parent or guardian reasonably or in good faith believes the communication is evidence that the child is a crime victim or is being drawn into criminal activity. |
Unless § 16-11-66.1(d) supplies a different result for stored-communication disclosure, a violation of Part 1 is a felony punishable by imprisonment for 1–5 years, a fine up to $10,000, or both (O.C.G.A. § 16-11-69). An ordinary lawful participant recording falls within § 16-11-66(a) and is not a § 16-11-62 violation. |
Part 1 does not state an express private cause of action or statutory damages schedule for an unlawful audio interception. It does impose an evidence consequence: no evidence obtained in violation of the Part is admissible in any Georgia court except to prove a violation of the Part (§ 16-11-67). |
Federal law permits a private participant, or a person with one party's prior consent, to intercept unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). Georgia's § 16-11-66(a) party exception does not state that purpose qualification, but federal law still supplies it where federal law applies. A stricter state's rule may govern an interstate call; this survey does not decide choice of law, so all-party consent is the prudent baseline when jurisdictions may differ. |
| Hawaii verified 2026-07-20 | Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 803, part IV (Electronic Eavesdropping); § 803-42 defines the offenses and § 803-48 the civil action. A separate privacy crime, § 711-1111, governs hidden recording in a private place. |
One party for the eavesdropping law. A person may intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when they are a party or one party has given prior consent (§ 803-42(b)(3)(A)). The § 711-1111 privacy law is stricter for hidden in-place recording. |
An oral (in-person) communication is protected only when uttered under a justified expectation against interception (§ 803-41). A wire communication (including cellular and cordless) has no such qualifier. The privacy law protects a 'private place' regardless of who is speaking (§ 711-1111). |
The one-party rule is the same for telephone and in-person audio. 'Wire communication' expressly includes cellular and cordless calls and tone-and-voice pagers (§ 803-41); 'oral communication' covers face-to-face speech; 'electronic communication' covers other transfers. Texts and stored data are boundary subjects. |
Being a party is the lawful basis; otherwise one party must give prior consent (§ 803-42(b)(3)(A)). No written form, script, tone, or warning is prescribed. Good-faith reliance on a court order is a complete defense (§ 803-42(b)(9)). |
Provider operations necessary to render service or protect the carrier (§ 803-42(b)(1)); publicly accessible and listed radio communications (§ 803-42(b)(7)); court-ordered interceptions (§ 803-42(b)(5)). The privacy law lets anyone record a police officer with no reasonable expectation of privacy (§ 711-1111(1)(d)). |
Unlawful interception, disclosure, or use is a class C felony (§ 803-42(a)): up to 5 years' imprisonment (§ 706-660) and a fine up to $10,000 (§ 706-640). Violation of privacy in the second degree under § 711-1111 is a misdemeanor, and the court may order the recording destroyed. |
A person whose communication is unlawfully accessed, intercepted, disclosed, or used may recover the greater of actual damages plus profits or statutory damages of $100 per day or $10,000, plus punitive damages where appropriate and attorney's fees (§ 803-48). A court may order an unlawful private-place recording destroyed (§ 711-1111(4)); good-faith reliance on a court order is a complete defense. |
Hawaii's one-party eavesdropping rule matches federal law, which lets a participant or a person with one party's consent record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). A stricter state on the other end of an interstate call may still apply, so all-party consent is the prudent baseline. |
| Idaho verified 2026-07-20 | Idaho Code §§ 18-6701 to 18-6702 (Communications Security): willfully intercepting, using a device to intercept, disclosing, or using any wire, electronic, or oral communication without authority. |
One-party consent. It is lawful for a person to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication 'when one (1) of the parties ... has given prior consent' (§ 18-6702(2)(d)); a participant supplies that consent by being a party. Recording is unlawful if done 'for the purpose of committing any criminal act' (§ 18-6702(2)(e)). |
For in-person speech, only an 'oral communication'—one 'uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation'—is protected (§ 18-6701(2)). Wire (telephone) and electronic communications carry no separate privacy qualifier; the one-party rule governs them directly. |
The same one-party rule covers wire (telephone), oral (in-person), and electronic communications (§ 18-6702(2)(d)). 'Electronic communication' includes any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, or data, but excludes wire or oral communications, tone-only paging, and tracking devices (§ 18-6701(10)); this page addresses the audio question. |
No prescribed form, tone, script, or warning. One party's 'prior consent' is enough (§ 18-6702(2)(d)); a participant satisfies it simply by taking part in the communication. |
Provider ordinary-course monitoring (§ 18-6702(2)(a)); telephone-company tracing of an obscene, harassing, or threatening call (§ 18-6702(2)(f)); law-enforcement, fire, or ambulance employees recording incoming calls while a party (§ 18-6702(2)(g)); and communications readily accessible to the public, such as unencrypted public-band radio (§ 18-6702(2)(h)). Being a party is itself the main safe harbor. |
A violation is a felony: imprisonment up to five years, a fine up to $5,000, or both (§ 18-6702(1)). Idaho does not drop a first offense to a misdemeanor. A lawful one-party recording, however, is no offense at all. |
A person whose communication is unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, or used may recover actual damages or liquidated damages of $100 a day or $1,000 (whichever is higher), punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs (§ 18-6709); good-faith reliance on a court order is a complete defense. Intercepted contents and derivative evidence are inadmissible where disclosure would violate the chapter (§ 18-6705). |
Federal law permits a participant, or one with a party's prior consent, to record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); Idaho is also one-party but bars only recording for a 'criminal' purpose (§ 18-6702(2)(e)). Neither rule fixes which state's law governs a multistate call, so all-party consent is the prudent baseline when a stricter state may apply. |
| Illinois verified 2026-07-20 | Illinois Eavesdropping Article, 720 ILCS 5/ art. 14 (§§ 14-1 to 14-9), rewritten in 2014 after the prior all-party statute was held unconstitutional. Under § 14-2(a)(2) a person commits eavesdropping who 'knowingly and intentionally' 'uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of transmitting or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all other parties.' The definitions confirm the Article reaches a participant: an 'eavesdropper' is 'any person, including … any party to a private conversation,' who operates an eavesdropping device contrary to the Article (§ 14-1(b)). |
All-party consent, but gated. A party who records is criminally liable only when two things are both true: the exchange is a 'private conversation' (or 'private electronic communication') and the recording is done 'in a surreptitious manner.' If so, § 14-2(a)(2) requires 'the consent of all other parties.' The recorder's own consent is never enough. But an openly made recording, or one of a conversation no party could reasonably expect to be private, falls outside the offense. |
Two elements must combine. First, a 'private conversation' (§ 14-1(d)) is an oral communication between two or more persons 'when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be of a private nature under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation,' and a 'reasonable expectation' includes any expectation recognized by law. Second, the recording must be 'surreptitious' (§ 14-1(g)) — 'obtained or made by stealth or deception, or executed through secrecy or concealment.' A non-private conversation, or an openly made recording, is not eavesdropping. Recording a law-enforcement officer performing duties in public, where the officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy, is expressly permitted (§ 14-2(e)). |
The 'private conversation' rule is the same for face-to-face speech and for a voice telephone call: the definition covers an oral communication 'whether in person or transmitted between the parties by wire or other means' (§ 14-1(d)). Non-voice electronic transfers — writing, images, data — are a separate category, 'private electronic communication' (§ 14-1(e)), reached by § 14-2(a)(3) under the same all-party rule when the communication is private and is surreptitiously intercepted. A signal from a tracking device is excluded. |
Consent of all other parties is required, but the statute prescribes no particular form — no writing, script, tone, or set duration. Because the offense requires a 'surreptitious' recording (by stealth, deception, or concealment), the practical alternative to obtaining consent is to record openly rather than secretly. A business may monitor telephone-marketing or customer-service calls under the separate § 14-3(j) exemption on that subsection's conditions; that is the business's exemption, not an ordinary caller's substitute for consent. |
The participant self-help exception is § 14-3(i): a recording 'made by or at the request of a person, not a law enforcement officer …, who is a party to the conversation, under reasonable suspicion that another party … is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a criminal offense against the person or a member of his or her immediate household, and there is reason to believe that evidence of the criminal offense may be obtained by the recording.' Section 14-2(e) allows recording police performing public duties where they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, and § 14-3(j) exempts certain business telephone monitoring. Court-ordered, law-enforcement, and penal-institution provisions are not available to an ordinary participant. |
Eavesdropping is a Class 4 felony for a first offense and a Class 3 felony for a second or subsequent offense (§ 14-4(a)). A Class 4 felony carries a determinate prison term of 'not less than one year and not more than 3 years' (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-45(a)) and a fine up to $25,000 (730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-50(b)). If the person recorded is a law-enforcement officer, State's Attorney, Attorney General, or judge acting in official duties, the offense is a Class 3 felony for a first offense and a Class 2 felony for a second (§ 14-4(b)). |
Civil: § 14-6 entitles 'any or all parties' to a conversation or electronic communication on which eavesdropping is practiced to an injunction against further eavesdropping, 'all actual damages against the eavesdropper,' and punitive damages. Evidence: § 14-5 makes 'any evidence obtained in violation of this Article … not admissible in any civil or criminal trial,' or in an administrative, legislative, or grand-jury proceeding, except so much as is clearly relevant in a prosecution for violating the Article, and except where all parties consent to its admission. |
Federal law is only a floor: a private person who is a party, or who has one party's prior consent, may record unless the purpose is a criminal or tortious act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). Illinois is stricter, requiring all parties' consent to a surreptitiously recorded private conversation. This survey does not decide which state's law governs an interstate call; when Illinois may apply, obtaining every participant's consent (or recording openly and non-secretly) is the prudent baseline. |
| Indiana verified 2026-07-20 | Indiana's wiretap law is Ind. Code Article 35-33.5 (Interception of Telephonic or Telegraphic Communications), with defined terms in Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2. 'Interception' is the intentional recording or acquisition of the contents of an electronic communication 'by a person other than a sender or receiver of that communication, without the consent of the sender or receiver' (Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-176). Indiana has no separate statute requiring consent to record a purely in-person conversation. |
One party. Because an 'interception' happens only when the recorder is not a party and lacks any party's consent (Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-176), a participant recording a call is never an unlawful interception, and a nonparticipant is covered only if the person records without the consent of a sender or receiver. So being a party—or having one party's consent—makes the recording lawful. |
There is no expectation-of-privacy or 'confidential communication' qualifier. What matters is party status and consent: the statute reaches only a recording by someone who is not a sender or receiver and who lacks a party's consent (Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-176). Readily accessible, unencrypted radio transmissions are expressly outside the definition of interception. |
The statute covers an 'electronic communication'—signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, oral communication, data, or intelligence transmitted in whole or part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system (Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-110). That reaches telephone, cellular, and internet audio. A face-to-face conversation not transmitted by such a system is not an 'electronic communication,' so Indiana's interception statute does not govern purely in-person recording at all. |
One party's consent is enough, and a participant supplies it by being a party. The statute frames the rule as recording 'without the consent of the sender or receiver' (Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-176); it prescribes no written form, spoken script, warning tone, or notice. No particular method of giving or documenting consent is required. |
Because a participant recording is not an 'interception,' no special participant exception is needed and none keyed to gathering evidence of a crime exists. Readily accessible unencrypted radio transmissions are excluded from the definition (Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-176). Communication-service providers and those assisting them have immunity for authorized assistance (Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-6). In-person conversations fall outside the statute entirely. |
A person who knowingly or intentionally intercepts a communication in violation of the article commits unlawful interception, a Level 5 felony (Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-5(b)). A Level 5 felony carries a fixed term of one to six years, with a three-year advisory sentence, and a fine of up to $10,000 (Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b)). Only a nonparty interception without consent triggers this; a lawful participant recording is not an offense. |
A person whose communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of the article may recover the greatest of actual damages, liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation, or $1,000, plus court costs, punitive damages when appropriate, and reasonable attorney's fees (Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-4); good-faith reliance on a warrant is a complete defense and the action has a two-year limit. The article's evidence rule (Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-1) governs court use of warrant-authorized interceptions; it does not create a separate suppression remedy for a private unlawful recording, and a lawful participant recording is admissible under ordinary rules. |
Indiana's one-party rule matches federal law, which lets a participant, or a person with one party's prior consent, record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). A call that reaches an all-party-consent state can trigger that stricter law, so consent from everyone is the prudent baseline for an interstate call. This survey does not decide which state's law governs. |
| Iowa verified 2026-07-20 | Chapter 808B prohibits willful interception and knowing use/disclosure of unlawfully intercepted wire, electronic, or protected oral communications. Section 727.8 separately prohibits unauthorized device interception but expressly exempts senders, recipients, and openly present participants/listeners |
One-party rule. Chapter 808B permits a party or one-party-prior-consent recording subject to the purpose limit (§ 808B.2(2)(c)); § 727.8 independently exempts a sender, recipient, or person openly present and participating or listening |
An oral communication is protected under Chapter 808B only when the speaker exhibits an expectation against interception under circumstances justifying it (§ 808B.1(8)); wire and electronic definitions have no comparable expectation element |
Wire covers aural transfers carried partly through wire/cable common-carrier facilities; electronic broadly covers transmitted sounds and data; § 727.8 also names telephone or communication wires and conversations or communications of any kind (§§ 808B.1(4), (12), 727.8(2)) |
Being a party is independently sufficient under Chapter 808B; otherwise one party must give prior consent. Neither participant provision prescribes a writing, spoken script, warning tone, or fixed duration (§§ 808B.2(2)(c), 727.8(3)(a)) |
The Chapter 808B private one-party exception fails for a criminal, tortious, or other injurious purpose. A separate property-owner surveillance exception requires all lawful owners/lessees' knowledge and consent and a crime-detection/prevention purpose (§ 808B.2(2)(c)–(d)) |
Chapter 808B violation: Class D felony, up to 5 years plus a mandatory $1,025–$10,245 fine (§§ 808B.2(1), 902.9(1)(e)). Section 727.8 is a serious misdemeanor, up to 1 year and $430–$2,560, but its participant exemption applies (§§ 727.8, 903.1(1)(b)) |
Section 808B.8 provides actual damages with a $100/day-or-$1,000 floor, punitive damages for a willful/malicious/reckless violation, fees/costs, and injunction; good-faith court-order reliance is a defense. Section 808B.7 excludes unlawfully intercepted contents and derivatives |
Federal law permits participant or one-party-consented interception unless its purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); Iowa adds an 'other injurious act' purpose limit and its own felony, damages, and exclusion rules. All-party consent is the prudent interstate baseline |
| Kansas verified 2026-07-20 | Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6101 (breach of privacy): knowingly intercepting a private telephone or other message without a party's consent, or using a device to record sounds in a 'private place' without the consent of a person entitled to privacy there. |
One-party consent. The statute bars interception only 'without the consent of the sender or receiver' (§ 21-6101(a)(1)) and device recording only without the consent of a person 'entitled to privacy' (§ 21-6101(a)(4)); the Kansas Supreme Court read it to require just one party's consent (State v. Roudybush, 686 P.2d 100 (Kan. 1984)). |
Protection turns on privacy. A telephone message must be a 'means of private communication' (§ 21-6101(a)(1)); the device-recording offense reaches only a 'private place'—'a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from uninvited intrusion or surveillance' (§ 21-6101(f))—and sounds not ordinarily audible without the device. Public conversations are not covered. |
Telephone, telegraph, and other wire or wireless communications are covered (§ 21-6101(a)(1),(a)(5)); in-person speech is covered only in a private place (§ 21-6101(a)(3),(a)(4)). Interception must occur in transit—reviewing an already-sent message later is not interception (State v. Brooks, 265 P.3d 1175 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011)). |
No prescribed form, tone, or warning. The consent of one party—the sender or receiver, or a person entitled to privacy—is enough (§ 21-6101(a)(1),(a)(4)); a participant supplies it simply by being a party to the communication. |
Overhearing on a regularly installed party-line or extension instrument (§ 21-6101(c)); switchboard operators and telephone utilities acting in the normal course (§ 21-6101(d)(1)); and interactive computer services, radio common carriers, telecommunications carriers, cable, satellite, and video programming distributors (§ 21-6101(d)(2)–(7)). Being a party is itself the main safe harbor. |
Unlawful audio interception or recording—§ 21-6101(a)(1) through (a)(5)—is a class A nonperson misdemeanor (§ 21-6101(b)(1)): up to one year in county jail (§ 21-6602(a)(1)) and a fine up to $2,500 (§ 21-6611(b)(1)). The felony grades in § 21-6101(b) apply to hidden-camera and image-dissemination offenses outside this audio survey. |
Kansas's express civil-damages statute, § 22-2518 (actual or liquidated damages of $100/day or $1,000, whichever is greater, punitive damages, and attorney's fees), is part of the criminal wiretap act and reaches interceptions 'in violation of this act,' not a § 21-6101 breach of privacy. No statute makes a lawful one-party recording inadmissible; an unlawful third-party interception may also support common-law invasion-of-privacy claims. |
Federal law lets a participant, or someone with a party's prior consent, record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); Kansas is also one-party. Neither rule fixes which state's law governs a multistate call, so all-party consent is the prudent baseline when a stricter state may apply. |
| Kentucky verified 2026-07-20 | Kentucky's rule is the eavesdropping statute, KRS Chapter 526 (Eavesdropping and Related Offenses). 'Eavesdrop' means recording 'any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one (1) party thereto by means of any electronic, mechanical or other device' (KRS 526.010), and KRS 526.020 makes intentionally using a device to eavesdrop a Class D felony. |
One party. Because 'eavesdrop' reaches only a communication 'of others ... without the consent of at least one (1) party' (KRS 526.010), a participant is never eavesdropping—your own call or conversation is not a communication 'of others,' and you supply the required consent by being a party. One participant's consent likewise makes even a non-party's recording lawful. Consent is built into the offense rather than granted as a separate exception. |
Kentucky's statute has no reasonable-expectation-of-privacy element. What triggers it is the use of 'any electronic, mechanical or other device' to record a wire or oral communication of others without a party's consent (KRS 526.010). There is no separate 'confidential communication' or 'private conversation' qualifier in the text; overhearing by ear, without a device, is not covered. |
The same one-party rule applies to telephone and in-person audio alike: 'eavesdrop' covers 'any part of a wire or oral communication of others' recorded with a device (KRS 526.010), so a phone call and a face-to-face conversation are treated the same way. What the statute looks for in each case is a recording device and the absence of any party's consent; there is no separate medium-based privacy threshold. |
One party's consent is required, and a participant supplies it by taking part. KRS 526.010 asks only for 'the consent of at least one (1) party' and prescribes no form—no written consent, spoken warning, script, or beep tone. Any single participant's consent is enough. |
Kentucky's exceptions are narrow. A person is not guilty who 'inadvertently overhears the communication through a regularly installed telephone party line or on a telephone extension but does not divulge it,' or who is a communications-common-carrier employee acting to render or protect the carrier's service (KRS 526.070). There is no statutory exception for recording to gather evidence of a crime—but because a participant's own recording is never eavesdropping, none is needed for it. |
Eavesdropping is a Class D felony (KRS 526.020(2)). A Class D felony carries a prison term of 'not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years' (KRS 532.060(2)(d)) and a felony fine of $1,000 to $10,000, or double the offender's gain, whichever is greater (KRS 534.030). This applies to recording a communication of others without a party's consent; a lawful participant recording is not an offense. Divulging illegally obtained information is a separate offense (KRS 526.060). |
Kentucky's eavesdropping chapter is purely criminal. KRS Chapter 526 (sections 526.010 through 526.080) sets out offenses, exceptions, and forfeiture but creates no civil cause of action and no statutory rule excluding an unlawful recording from evidence. A person recorded unlawfully must rely on any available common-law claim, and a recording's admissibility is governed by Kentucky's general rules of evidence and case law rather than by the eavesdropping statute. |
Kentucky's one-party rule tracks federal law, which lets a participant, or a person with one party's prior consent, record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). A call reaching an all-party-consent state can trigger that stricter law, so consent from everyone is the prudent baseline for an interstate call. This survey does not decide which state's law governs. |
| Louisiana verified 2026-07-20 | La. R.S. 15:1302–1303 prohibit willful interception and knowing use or disclosure of unlawfully intercepted wire, electronic, or protected oral communications; interception requires acquisition through an electronic, mechanical, or other device |
One-party rule. A private person may intercept when the recorder is a party or one party gave prior consent, unless the purpose is criminal, tortious, or otherwise injurious (R.S. 15:1303(C)(4)) |
An oral communication is protected only when the speaker exhibits an expectation against interception under circumstances justifying it (R.S. 15:1302(17)); wire and electronic definitions have no comparable expectation element |
Wire communications include aural transfers carried partly by wire/cable facilities, electronic storage, and the radio portion of cordless, portable, and cellular calls; electronic communications also expressly include those handset-to-base/tower radio portions (R.S. 15:1302(9), (22)) |
Being a party is independently sufficient; otherwise one party must give prior consent. The statute prescribes no writing, spoken script, warning tone, or duration (R.S. 15:1303(C)(4)) |
The private one-party exception fails for a criminal, tortious, or other injurious purpose. Other express exceptions concern provider operations, pen-register/call-identification functions, and specified law-enforcement hostage or barricade situations (R.S. 15:1303(C)) |
A violation carries a fine up to $10,000 and imprisonment at hard labor for two to ten years (R.S. 15:1303(B)); Louisiana defines a hard-labor-punishable crime as a felony (R.S. 14:2(A)(4)) |
R.S. 15:1312 provides actual damages with a $100/day-or-$1,000 floor, punitive damages, fees, and costs. R.S. 15:1307 excludes unlawfully intercepted wire/oral contents and derivatives and separately restricts distribution of unlawfully intercepted electronic contents |
Federal law permits a participant or one-party-consented recording unless its purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); Louisiana adds an 'other injurious act' purpose limit and its own felony, civil, and evidence consequences. All-party consent is the prudent interstate baseline |
| Maine verified 2026-07-20 | 15 M.R.S. ch. 102 (Interception of Wire and Oral Communications); § 710 defines the offenses, § 709 the key terms, and § 711 the civil action. A separate crime, 17-A M.R.S. § 511, governs recording in a private place. |
One party. The offense reaches only 'interception,' and 'intercept' expressly excludes the sender or receiver and a person given prior authority by the sender or receiver (§ 709(4)). A participant is therefore not intercepting and may record. |
An oral (in-person) communication is protected only when uttered under a justified expectation against interception (§ 709(5)). Words within another person's normal unaided hearing are outside the definition of intercept (§ 709(4)(B)). The § 511 private-place rule is location-based instead. |
The interception law covers 'wire' and 'oral' communications (§ 709(5), (7)); it does not define or reach 'electronic communications,' so texts, email, and data are boundary subjects under other law. A face-to-face conversation and a telephone call follow the same participant rule. |
Being the sender or receiver is itself the lawful basis; otherwise the sender or receiver must give prior authority (§ 709(4)). No written form, tone, or script is prescribed. |
The definition of intercept excludes participants, persons within normal unaided hearing, and persons authorized by a party (§ 709(4)). Common-carrier employees, law enforcement, and designated corrections and jail officers are excepted from the offense (§ 710(1)). No general threat or self-help exception is stated. |
Illegal interception, disclosure, or use is a Class C crime (§ 710): up to 5 years' imprisonment (17-A M.R.S. § 1604) and a fine up to $5,000 (17-A M.R.S. § 1704). Recording in a private place is a Class D crime (17-A M.R.S. § 511). |
Any party to a conversation intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of the chapter may recover actual damages but not less than liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation, plus a reasonable attorney's fee and litigation costs (§ 711). A recording you lawfully make as a participant is not an interception. |
Maine's one-party rule tracks federal law, which lets a participant or a person with one party's consent record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). A stricter state on the other end of an interstate call may still apply, so all-party consent is the prudent baseline. |
| Maryland verified 2026-07-20 | Md. Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings §§ 10-401 to 10-414 (Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act). Section 10-402(a) makes it unlawful to willfully intercept, disclose, or use any wire, oral, or electronic communication obtained in violation of the subtitle. 'Intercept' means the aural or other acquisition of a communication's contents through a device (§ 10-401(10)). |
All parties. Section 10-402(c)(3) makes recording lawful only 'where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent'—unless the recording is for a criminal or tortious purpose. Being a participant is not enough; you must have every party's prior consent. |
For in-person speech, a protected 'oral communication' is 'any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation' (§ 10-401(13)); Maryland courts read 'private conversation' to require a reasonable expectation of privacy, so talk with no such expectation may fall outside the Act. Telephone (wire) and electronic communications carry no privacy qualifier—the all-party rule applies to a phone call regardless of any privacy expectation. |
The all-party rule applies to telephone calls (a 'wire communication,' § 10-401(18)), in-person private conversations (an 'oral communication,' § 10-401(13)), and electronic communications (§ 10-401(5)). Some categories are outside the Act—an electronic communication configured to be readily accessible to the general public, and listed public, radio, marine, amateur, and citizens-band transmissions (§ 10-402(c)(7)). |
Every party's consent must be given 'prior' to the interception (§ 10-402(c)(3)). The Act prescribes no particular form—no written consent, spoken script, or warning tone is specified—so consent may be shown however it is reliably obtained, but it must come from all parties before recording. |
There is no general exception letting an ordinary participant secretly record to gather evidence; the § 10-402(c)(2) evidence-gathering interception is for law enforcement or a person acting under their direction. Other exemptions are institutional—provider operations, a governmental emergency communications center (§ 10-402(c)(5)), publicly accessible radio and electronic communications, and various law-enforcement body-camera and body-wire provisions. For a private participant, the operative rule remains all-party consent with the criminal-or-tortious-purpose limit. |
Felony. A violation of § 10-402(a) is 'a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both' (§ 10-402(b)). The felony grade applies whether the violation is an unlawful interception, disclosure, or use. |
Under § 10-410, a person whose communication is unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, or used may recover actual damages but not less than liquidated damages of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000 (whichever is higher), punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs; good-faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization is a complete defense. Separately, § 10-405(a) bars an unlawfully intercepted communication—and evidence derived from it—from being received in any Maryland trial, hearing, or proceeding, with only a narrow out-of-state co-conspirator exception (§ 10-405(b)). |
Federal law allows one-party recording unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)), but Maryland is stricter and requires every party's consent. A call that reaches Maryland can bring the all-party rule into play. Section 10-405(b) lets a recording lawfully made in another state be used in Maryland only in a narrow co-conspirator crime-of-violence situation; otherwise, this survey does not decide which state's law governs, and all-party consent is the prudent baseline. |
| Massachusetts verified 2026-07-20 | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(B)(4), (C)(1) defines interception as secretly hearing or recording a wire or oral communication through an intercepting device without prior authority from all parties, and punishes a willful interception or attempt. |
All-party rule for a secret recording. Section 99(B)(4) requires prior authority from all parties, but a recording made with every party's actual knowledge is not secret and therefore is not an interception, even without affirmative authorization (Massachusetts Model Jury Instruction 7.560, citing Commonwealth v. Jackson). |
Secrecy, not a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy or confidential-communication test, is the statutory trigger. A person records secretly when the recorded people are unaware or not otherwise on notice. Section 99(B)(2) broadly defines oral communication as speech other than speech transmitted over public radio airwaves. |
Section 99(B)(1) covers communications transmitted wholly or partly through wire, cable, or a like connection; § 99(B)(2) covers spoken communication. The statute therefore reaches ordinary telephone audio and face-to-face speech, but it does not create a separate electronic-communication category for text, email, or stored data. |
Prior authority from all parties avoids the statutory definition of interception. The statute prescribes no script, writing, warning tone, or duration. Under the official jury instruction, clear actual knowledge or notice to every recorded person defeats secrecy even if the parties did not affirmatively authorize or consent. |
Section 99(D)(1) permits necessary carrier operations and mechanical or service-quality checks, ordinary-course use of an office intercommunication system, and a financial institution's ordinary-course recording with corporate or institutional trading partners after establishing semiannual written notice. Current law has no general participant exception for documenting threats or harassment; pending S.1215 would add a narrow one. |
Felony under ch. 274, § 1 because state-prison imprisonment is authorized. A willful interception, attempt, or procurement is punishable by a fine up to $10,000, up to five years in state prison or two and one-half years in jail or a house of correction, or both fine and one term of imprisonment (§ 99(C)(1)). |
An aggrieved person may recover actual damages subject to liquidated damages of $100 per day or $1,000, whichever is higher, punitive damages, attorney fees, and litigation disbursements; good-faith warrant reliance is a complete defense (§ 99(Q)). A criminal defendant may move to suppress an unlawfully or nonconformingly intercepted communication and derived evidence (§ 99(P)). |
Federal law generally permits a private participant, or a person with one party's prior consent, to intercept unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); Massachusetts is stricter when the recording is secret. No location shortcut resolves an interstate call, so obtaining every participant's consent is the prudent baseline. |
| Michigan verified 2026-07-20 | Michigan eavesdropping act, MCL 750.539a–750.539i. § 750.539c makes it a felony to 'wilfully use[] any device to eavesdrop upon' a private conversation 'without the consent of all parties'; § 750.539a(2) defines eavesdropping as recording 'any part of the private discourse of others.' |
Mixed. The text requires all parties' consent (§ 750.539c), but Michigan's controlling appellate decisions (Sullivan v. Gray, 1982; Bloom v. Pegasus, 2002) hold a participant is not an 'eavesdropper,' so a party may record without others' consent—effectively one-party. No Michigan Supreme Court ruling; it declined to revisit the point in 2021, so all-party consent is the cautious baseline. |
Only a 'private conversation' is protected; the Michigan Supreme Court ties this to a reasonable expectation of privacy (People v. Stone, 2001), so conversations in public places are not covered. A 'private place' is one where a person 'may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance' and excludes places open to the public (§ 750.539a(1)). |
The § 750.539c rule applies to a private conversation whether in person or by telephone. Recording the sounds or events in a private place is separately governed by § 750.539d, which needs the consent of every person entitled to privacy there. Using or divulging unlawfully obtained information is a separate felony (§ 750.539e). |
The statute prescribes no script, tone, warning, or written form. Under the participant reading, party status is enough; a person who is not part of the private conversation needs the consent of all parties before recording. |
Section 750.539g exempts a peace officer acting in the line of duty, common-carrier employees, a public utility's service/complaint recording, and corrections monitoring of prisoner calls. Section 750.539d(2) separately allows an owner or principal occupant's residential security monitoring, unless done for a lewd or lascivious purpose. |
Felony. Eavesdropping on a private conversation (§ 750.539c), recording in a private place (§ 750.539d), and divulging unlawfully obtained information (§ 750.539e) are each punishable by up to two years' imprisonment or a $2,000 fine, or both; § 750.539d rises to five years or $5,000 for a repeat offense or for distributing the recording. |
A party to a bugged conversation may obtain an injunction, all actual damages, and punitive damages (§ 750.539h). These sections contain no evidence-exclusion rule of their own, so whether an unlawful recording may be used is left to general Michigan evidence law. |
Federal law permits one-party recording (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)), and Michigan's courts read its statute the same way for a participant. But because the Michigan Supreme Court has not settled the point and a call may reach an all-party-consent state, consent from everyone is the prudent baseline for an interstate call. |
| Minnesota verified 2026-07-20 | Minn. Stat. ch. 626A prohibits intentional device-based interception and knowing use or disclosure of unlawfully intercepted wire, electronic, or protected oral communications (§§ 626A.01–.02) |
One-party rule. A private person may intercept when the recorder is a party or one party gave prior consent, unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (§ 626A.02, subd. 2(d)) |
An oral communication is protected only when the speaker exhibits an expectation against interception under circumstances justifying it (§ 626A.01, subd. 4); wire and electronic definitions contain no comparable expectation element |
Wire communications include voice transfers carried partly through wire/cable facilities and electronic storage; electronic communications broadly include transmitted sounds/data; face-to-face speech is covered when it meets the protected oral-communication definition (§ 626A.01) |
Being a party is independently sufficient. Otherwise one party must give prior consent; the statute prescribes no writing, spoken script, warning tone, or duration (§ 626A.02, subd. 2(d)) |
The private one-party exemption is unavailable for a criminal or tortious purpose. Other exemptions include provider operations, public-access electronic/radio communications, interference tracing, same-frequency users, and inadvertent interception of the cordless handset-to-base radio portion (§ 626A.02, subd. 2) |
The standard § 626A.02, subd. 1 violation carries up to five years' imprisonment, a fine up to $20,000, or both (subd. 4(a)); because imprisonment of one year or more may be imposed, Minnesota defines it as a felony (§ 609.02, subd. 2) |
Section 626A.13 allows equitable/declaratory relief, punitive damages where appropriate, fees/costs, and the greater of treble actual damages plus violator profits or $100/day-or-$10,000 statutory damages, subject to a two-year discovery-based limit. Section 626A.04 excludes contents and derivatives when disclosure would violate the chapter |
Minnesota's private one-party rule closely tracks 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), but state remedies and evidence consequences remain independent. Choice of law is fact-specific, so all-party consent is the prudent baseline when an interstate call may implicate a stricter state |
| Mississippi verified 2026-07-20 | Miss. Code §§ 41-29-501 to -535 regulate interception of wire, oral, and other communications through an electronic, mechanical, or other device; §§ 41-29-531(e), -533, and -529 supply the private-party exception, penalty, and civil remedy. |
One-party consent, subject to purpose. A private person may intercept when that person is a party or one party gave prior consent, unless the purpose is criminal, tortious, or any other injurious act (§ 41-29-531(e)). |
An oral communication requires an exhibited and justified expectation against interception; an 'other communication' requires that the parties may reasonably expect privacy (§ 41-29-501(j)-(k)). The wire-communication definition has no separate privacy qualifier. |
Wire communications expressly include cordless telephones, voice pagers, cellular telephones, any mobile telephone, and provider facilities. Oral covers protected face-to-face speech; 'other communication' includes electronic, fax, computer-generated, similar, scrambled, and encrypted signals where privacy is reasonably expected (§ 41-29-501). |
A participant's party status is sufficient. Otherwise one party must give prior consent. The statute prescribes no written form, script, audible tone, periodic warning, or continued-participation rule (§ 41-29-531(e)). |
Provider ordinary-course service/property protection; carrier equipment used solely for business-service improvements; authorized law-enforcement assistance; color-of-law one-party interception; the private one-party exception; and subscriber or household-member interception on the subscribed or home telephone (§§ 41-29-531, -535). |
Knowing and intentional possession, installation, operation, or monitoring of an interception device in violation of the article is a misdemeanor: up to 1 year in county jail, a fine up to $10,000, or both (§ 41-29-533(1)). A violation of § 41-29-511's rules for disclosure/use of authorized law-enforcement interceptions is a felony punishable by up to 5 years and a fine up to $10,000 (§ 41-29-533(2)). |
A person whose communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation may recover actual damages, with a floor of $100 per day or $1,000 (whichever is higher), punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs; good-faith reliance on a court order is a complete defense (§ 41-29-529). Unlawfully disclosed contents/derivatives are excluded, with civil use limited to proceedings arising from a Mississippi criminal-law violation (§ 41-29-503). |
Mississippi states no private interstate choice-of-law rule here. Federal law also permits a participant or one party's prior consent unless the purpose is criminal or tortious, but Mississippi additionally says 'any other injurious act' (§ 41-29-531(e); 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). A stricter connected state's law may apply, so all-party consent is the prudent baseline. |
| Missouri verified 2026-07-20 | Missouri's wiretap act is RSMo §§ 542.400–542.422. Section 542.402 criminalizes knowing interception of a wire communication and a narrower form of oral-communication interception involving a device that transmits by radio or interferes with transmission; § 542.400 supplies the privacy and medium definitions |
Mixed rule. Private recording of a wire communication is lawful when the recorder is a party or one party gave prior consent (§ 542.402.2(3)). The private-person exception does not say the same for an oral communication; ordinary in-person audio must be tested under § 542.402.1(2)'s narrower device trigger |
A wire communication has no separate expectation-of-privacy element in § 542.400. An oral communication is protected only when the speaker exhibits an expectation against interception under circumstances justifying it (§ 542.400(8)) |
Wire calls carried in whole or part through common-carrier wire/cable facilities are covered (§ 542.400(12)); the official case note confirms cellular-to-landline calls. Face-to-face speech is an oral communication, but § 542.402.1(2) reaches it only with the named radio-transmitting/interference device. No separate 'electronic communication' category appears in this Act |
For a private wire interception, being a party is independently sufficient; otherwise one party must give prior consent (§ 542.402.2(3)). The statute prescribes no writing, spoken script, tone, or recording-warning method |
The private wire exception is unavailable when the interception's purpose is a criminal or tortious act (§ 542.402.2(3)). Carrier employees may monitor in the normal course for service/property protection, but not randomly except for mechanical or service-quality checks (§ 542.402.2(1)) |
Class E felony (§ 542.402.1): imprisonment up to 4 years (§ 558.011.1(5)); an individual fine up to $10,000, or up to twice the offender's gain when that is higher (§ 558.002.1) |
For a wire communication, § 542.418 provides actual damages with a $100/day-or-$10,000 floor, possible punitive damages, fees, and costs; § 542.420 excludes unlawfully obtained wire contents and derivatives. These provisions do not expressly extend to oral communications |
Federal law permits a participant or one-party-consented recording unless its purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). Missouri's wire rule is similar but its in-person and medium definitions are narrower and fact-specific; this survey does not decide choice of law, and all-party consent is the prudent baseline for interstate calls |
| Montana verified 2026-07-20 | Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213 (violating privacy in communications). Subsection (1)(c) governs recording a conversation with a hidden device; subsection (3) covers intercepting an electronic communication. |
All parties must have knowledge. It is a crime to record a conversation 'by use of a hidden electronic or mechanical device ... without the knowledge of all parties' (§ 45-8-213(1)(c)). A warning cures it: once one party gives warning of the recording, either party may record (§ 45-8-213(2)(a)(iii)). |
The trigger is a hidden device plus lack of knowledge, not a separate confidentiality test. Because the offense requires a 'hidden' device, open recording that participants can see, or recording after a warning, is not covered; nor is recording where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. |
The hidden-device rule applies to a telephone call or an in-person 'human conversation' alike (§ 45-8-213(1)(c)). A separate offense reaches purposely intercepting an 'electronic communication' — any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, or data (§ 45-8-213(3), (6)). |
Every party must know of the recording; a warning is enough, and after one party warns, either party may record (§ 45-8-213(2)(a)(iii)). No written form, script, or tone is prescribed. Formal consent is not required if all parties have knowledge. |
The hidden-device rule does not apply to elected or appointed officials and public employees recording in official duty, persons speaking at public meetings, persons given a warning, or a health care facility recording a health-care emergency call (§ 45-8-213(2)(a)). |
Unlawful recording is a misdemeanor: a fine up to $500, or up to 6 months in the county jail, or both (§ 45-8-213(4)(a)). The escalating repeat-offense penalties apply to the harassment and image-disclosure offenses, not to the recording offense. |
Section 45-8-213 authorizes no civil cause of action and states no statutory suppression rule; it is enforced only as a crime. Any exclusion or privacy claim depends on general Montana law rather than this section. |
Montana is stricter than federal law, which permits a participant or a person with one party's consent to record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). For a call connected to Montana, make sure every party knows about the recording; when jurisdictions differ, all-party consent is the prudent baseline. |
| Nebraska verified 2026-07-20 | Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 86-271 to 86-295 (interception of wire, electronic, and oral communications); § 86-290 defines the offenses and § 86-297 the civil action. |
One party. A person may record a wire, electronic, or oral communication when they are a party to it or one party has given prior consent (§ 86-290(2)(c)). |
An oral (in-person) communication is protected only when spoken under a justified expectation that it is not being intercepted (§ 86-283). A wire or electronic communication has no separate confidentiality qualifier. |
The act reaches wire, electronic, and oral communications (§ 86-290). A telephone call is a wire or electronic communication; a face-to-face conversation is an oral communication and is protected only if spoken under a justified expectation of privacy (§ 86-283). |
Being a party to the communication is itself the lawful basis; otherwise one party must give prior consent (§ 86-290(2)(c)). No written form, script, tone, or warning is prescribed. |
Employer/provider monitoring necessary to render service or protect the carrier (§ 86-290(2)(a)); readily-public communications and listed radio/cable/satellite signals (§ 86-290(2)(d)); pen registers and provider fraud-prevention records (§ 86-290(2)(e)). The party-consent rule itself is the ordinary-person exception. |
Unlawful interception, disclosure, or use is a Class IV felony (§ 86-290(1)): up to 2 years' imprisonment plus 12 months' post-release supervision, or a fine up to $10,000, or both, with no mandatory minimum (§ 28-105). |
A person whose communication is unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, or used may recover the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits or statutory damages of $100 per day or $10,000, plus attorney's fees and costs, with equitable relief and a 2-year limit (§ 86-297). A communication intercepted by a non-party without consent is inadmissible (White v. Longo). |
Nebraska's one-party rule tracks federal law, which lets a participant or a person with one party's consent record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). A stricter state on the other end of an interstate call can still apply, so all-party consent is the prudent baseline. |
| Nevada verified 2026-07-20 | NRS 200.610-.690: interception of wire communications, surreptitious recording of private conversations, disclosure, penalties, and civil damages; Ditech Financial LLC v. Buckles confirms the telephone rule. |
Mixed rule. Telephone call recorded in Nevada: all-party consent (NRS 200.620; Ditech/Lane). Private in-person conversation: one participant may authorize the recording (NRS 200.650). |
Telephone rule has no express confidentiality qualifier. In-person rule reaches a surreptitious intrusion on privacy by recording a 'private conversation'; whether a setting is private is fact-specific (NRS 200.650). |
NRS 200.610 defines wire and radio communications; § 200.620 governs wire communications, and § 200.650 governs any private in-person conversation recorded by a listening device. The chapter does not separately enumerate cellular, cordless, VoIP, text, email, or stored communications. |
Telephone consent must be prior and must come from every participant under the court's construction of § 200.620. No written form, script, tone, or warning method is prescribed. For a private in-person conversation, authorization from one participant is enough (§ 200.650). |
Service-provider operations (§ 200.620(2)); authorized court-order and emergency interceptions; listed emergency/public-utility lines and related outgoing calls with notice (§ 200.620(4)); and one-participant authorization for private in-person conversations (§ 200.650). No general ordinary-person threat or abuse exception appears in these sections. |
Willful and knowing violation of §§ 200.620-.650 is a category D felony: 1-4 years in state prison and a possible fine up to $5,000 (NRS 200.690(1)(a), 193.130(2)(d)). |
Actual damages or $100 per day with a $1,000 floor, whichever is greater, plus punitive damages, costs, and attorney's fees (NRS 200.690(1)(b)). Title 14's NRS 179.505 states a suppression procedure for unlawfully intercepted communications and derivative evidence. |
Ditech holds § 200.620 inapplicable when the recorder and recording equipment are outside Nevada; that does not make the call lawful under another state's law. Federal law generally permits one-party consent unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); use all-party consent when jurisdictions differ. |
| New Hampshire verified 2026-07-20 | N.H. Rev. Stat. ch. 570-A (Wiretapping and Eavesdropping); § 570-A:2 defines the offenses, § 570-A:11 the civil action, and § 570-A:6 the evidentiary bar. |
All parties. It is unlawful to intercept a telecommunication or oral communication 'without the consent of all parties' (§ 570-A:2, I). A person who is a party but lacks the others' consent still violates the chapter, as a misdemeanor (§ 570-A:2, I-a). |
An oral (in-person) communication is protected only when spoken by a person with a reasonable expectation, justified by the circumstances, that it is not being intercepted (§ 570-A:1, II). A telecommunication carried by a common carrier has no separate expectation qualifier. |
The all-party rule covers both a 'telecommunication' (information carried through a communications common carrier, expressly including wireless technology) and an in-person 'oral communication' (§ 570-A:1). 'Intercept' expressly includes recording (§ 570-A:1, III). |
Consent of all parties is required (§ 570-A:2, I); the statute prescribes no form, tone, or script. Best practice is that every participant is aware the conversation is being recorded before it begins. |
Communication common carrier operations necessary to render service or protect the carrier (§ 570-A:2, II(a)); law enforcement acting under the chapter's authorization (§ 570-A:2, II(b)-(e)). The fetched text states no general exception letting a private participant record a call merely to document a threat or abuse. |
Mixed. A non-party interception without all-party consent is a class B felony (§ 570-A:2, I): up to 7 years' imprisonment and a fine up to $4,000 (§ 651:2). A party who records without the others' consent commits a misdemeanor (§ 570-A:2, I-a): a class A misdemeanor carries up to 1 year and a fine up to $2,000 (§ 651:2). |
A person whose communication is unlawfully intercepted may recover actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100 per day or $1,000 (whichever is higher), plus punitive damages and attorney's fees (§ 570-A:11). No part of an intercepted communication or evidence derived from it is admissible where disclosure would violate the chapter (§ 570-A:6). |
New Hampshire is stricter than federal law, which allows a participant or a person with one party's consent to record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). For a call touching New Hampshire, follow the all-party rule; when jurisdictions differ, all-party consent is the prudent baseline. |
| New Jersey verified 2026-07-20 | The New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 et seq., governs interception. Section 2A:156A-3 prohibits purposeful interception and purposeful disclosure or use of unlawfully intercepted wire, electronic, or oral communications. 'Intercept' means acquiring contents through an electronic, mechanical, or other device (§ 2A:156A-2(c)); § 2A:156A-4(d) supplies the private-participant exception. |
One-party consent. A private person may intercept when the person is a party or one party gave prior consent, unless the communication is intercepted or used for a criminal, tortious, or other injurious act (§ 2A:156A-4(d)). A telephone subscriber's status alone does not authorize interception of conversations among other people. |
An in-person 'oral communication' is protected only when the speaker exhibits an expectation against interception under circumstances justifying it (§ 2A:156A-2(b)). The separate wire-communication definition has no comparable expectation language. The one-party exception applies across wire, electronic, and protected oral communications. |
Sections 2A:156A-3 and -4 cover wire, electronic, and oral communications. A wire communication is an aural transfer carried wholly or partly through wire, cable, or like transmission facilities and expressly includes electronic storage and the radio portion between a cordless handset and base (§ 2A:156A-2(a)). Protected face-to-face speech is oral; electronic communication separately includes transmitted signs, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence, excluding wire and oral communications (§ 2A:156A-2(m)). |
A participant relies on being a party and needs no consent from anyone else. A nonparticipant needs one party's prior consent. Section 2A:156A-4(d) prescribes no writing, script, tone, announcement, or duration, so it creates no general beep-tone or written-consent requirement. Pending A1211 and S1508 would instead require all parties' prior consent. |
Section 2A:156A-4(d)'s party-or-one-party allowance is limited when interception or use has a criminal, tortious, or other injurious purpose. Separate public-access exceptions permit access to electronic communications configured as readily accessible to the public and interception of listed public, distress, public-safety, amateur, citizens-band, marine, and aeronautical radio communications (§ 2A:156A-4(e)–(f)). |
Purposeful interception outside an exception, and purposeful disclosure or use with the required knowledge, is a crime of the third degree (§ 2A:156A-3). The ordinary authorized imprisonment term is 3–5 years (§ 2C:43-6(a)(3)); the ordinary maximum fine is $15,000 (§ 2C:43-3(b)(1)). |
A person whose communication is unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, or used may recover actual damages, but not less than $100 per day or $1,000, whichever is higher, plus punitive damages, reasonable attorney's fees, and litigation costs (§ 2A:156A-24). An aggrieved person may move to suppress an unlawful interception or derived evidence; if granted, the contents and derived evidence are not received in the proceeding (§ 2A:156A-21). |
Federal law also permits a private participant, or a person with one party's prior consent, to intercept unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). New Jersey adds an express 'other injurious act' limit. A stricter state's law may still matter on an interstate call, and this survey does not decide choice of law; obtaining every participant's consent is the prudent baseline when jurisdictions may differ. |
| New Mexico verified 2026-07-20 | NMSA 1978, § 30-12-1 prohibits knowingly and without lawful authority reading, interrupting, taking, or copying a message intended for another by telegraph or telephone without a sender's or intended recipient's consent, and using apparatus to do those acts. |
One party for telephone communications. Consent from a sender or intended recipient defeats § 30-12-1(C); a participant may therefore consent to recording the participant's own call. Ordinary face-to-face recording is outside § 30-12-1(C), as the official annotation to State v. Hogervorst confirms. |
No confidentiality, secrecy, or reasonable-expectation qualifier appears in § 30-12-1(C); it instead requires a telephone or telegraph message intended for another and lack of consent from a sender or intended recipient. In-person speech is outside that paragraph rather than screened by a privacy test. |
Expressly covers telegraph and telephone messages and separately names telephone lines, wires, cables, and instruments. It does not expressly name cellular, cordless, VoIP, email, text, or a general electronic-communication category. The state offense does not cover ordinary face-to-face conversation recording. |
For private telephone communications, § 30-12-1(C) requires only consent of a sender or intended recipient and prescribes no prior timing, writing, script, warning tone, or continued-participation rule. The separate color-of-law exception expressly requires one party's prior consent. |
Court-ordered interception under §§ 30-12-2 to -11; normal-course switchboard or common-carrier activity necessary for service or carrier rights/property; and crime investigation under color of law when the officer is a party or one party gave prior consent (§ 30-12-1). |
Interference with communications is a misdemeanor (§ 30-12-1). The general misdemeanor sentence is a definite county-jail term of less than 1 year, a fine up to $1,000, or both (§ 31-19-1(A)). |
A person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation may recover actual damages with a floor of $100 per day or $1,000, whichever is higher, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs; good-faith reliance is a complete defense (§ 30-12-11). An aggrieved person may move to suppress an unlawful interception and derivatives; if granted, they are inadmissible (§ 30-12-8). |
New Mexico states no private interstate choice-of-law rule in § 30-12-1. Federal law generally allows a participant or one party's prior consent but withdraws that protection for a criminal or tortious purpose (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). A stricter connected state's law may apply, so all-party consent is the prudent baseline. |
| New York verified 2026-07-20 | New York Penal Law article 250 ('Offenses Against the Right to Privacy'). Section 250.05 makes it eavesdropping to 'unlawfully' engage in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing an electronic communication. The definitions in § 250.00 do the work: each covers only a non-party interceptor. The article targets a person who is not part of the communication; a participant's own recording is outside the crime. |
One-party consent — a participant is exempt. 'Wiretapping' reaches only overhearing or recording 'by a person other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver' (§ 250.00(1)); 'mechanical overhearing of a conversation' reaches only recording 'without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat' (§ 250.00(2)). Because a participant is a sender/receiver and is present, recording your own call or conversation is not eavesdropping, and one party's consent lets a nonparticipant record too. |
New York does not condition the crime on a separate 'confidential' or 'private' quality of the communication or on a reasonable expectation of privacy. The line is instead drawn by participation and consent: a communication is protected against a non-party who lacks any party's consent, regardless of setting. The exception built into the definitions is for a party (or a party's consent) — not for a public-versus-private classification of the conversation. |
The participant exemption is the same across media. A 'telephonic communication' is an aural transfer through wire, cable, or like facilities (§ 250.00(3)), reaching landline and cellular calls (wiretapping); an in-person 'conversation or discussion' is covered by mechanical overhearing; and 'intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication' covers electronic messages, excluding the sender or intended receiver's own access (§ 250.00(6)). Tone-only paging, tracking-device signals, and communications the sender made readily accessible to the public are excluded. |
The statute prescribes no form of consent or notice. A participant needs none — being a sender/receiver or a party who is present takes the recording outside the eavesdropping definitions. A nonparticipant needs the consent of a sender or receiver (for a call) or of at least one party (for a conversation), but the statute does not dictate how that consent is expressed. There is no announcement or beep-tone requirement to read into New York law. |
The participant/one-party structure is itself the ordinary-person allowance; New York does not add a separate self-help 'evidence of a crime' recording exception, and none is needed because a participant already may record. 'Unlawfully' means not authorized under Criminal Procedure Law article 700 or 705 (§ 250.00(8)), so judicially warranted interceptions are outside the crime. The statute also excludes a telephone corporation's normal operations. Court-ordered and law-enforcement interceptions are outside an ordinary participant's scope. |
Eavesdropping under § 250.05 is a class E felony — New York's lowest felony class. Under Penal Law § 70.00(2)(e), a class E felony carries an indeterminate prison term with a maximum the court fixes 'not to exceed four years' (a shorter definite sentence, probation, or a conditional discharge is also possible for a class E felony). A fine may be imposed up to the higher of $5,000 or double the defendant's gain from the crime (§ 80.00(1)). |
Evidence: under CPLR 4506, the contents of any communication obtained 'by conduct constituting the crime of eavesdropping, as defined by section 250.05,' or evidence derived from it, may not be received in any trial, hearing, or proceeding — except against a person who committed the eavesdropping — and an aggrieved party may move to suppress it in a civil proceeding. Civil damages: New York's eavesdropping statute provides no dedicated private cause of action for money damages (unlike the all-party states'), so a lawful participant recording is admissible and the statutory consequences of unlawful eavesdropping are criminal liability plus the CPLR 4506 bar. |
Federal law permits a private party (or a nonparticipant with one party's consent) to record unless the purpose is a criminal or tortious act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); New York's one-party rule aligns with that floor. For a purely New York call the two agree. But if another participant is in an all-party-consent state, that stricter rule may apply, and this survey does not decide which state's law governs an interstate call — obtaining every participant's consent is the prudent baseline when jurisdictions may differ. |
| North Carolina verified 2026-07-20 | North Carolina's Electronic Surveillance Article is G.S. 15A-286–15A-298. Section 15A-287(a) makes willful interception, disclosure, or use of wire, oral, or electronic communications a Class H felony when done without at least one party's consent. 'Intercept' means acquiring the contents through an electronic, mechanical, or other device (§ 15A-286(13)). |
One-party consent. Section 15A-287(a) applies only when the person acts 'without the consent of at least one party to the communication.' A participant's own consent therefore permits the recording; a nonparticipant may record with any one party's consent. |
An in-person 'oral communication' is protected only when the speaker exhibits an expectation against interception under circumstances justifying that expectation (§ 15A-286(17)). The separate wire-communication definition has no comparable expectation language. The one-party rule still permits a participant to record either category. |
The offense and consent rule apply to wire, oral, and electronic communications. A wire communication is a human-voice transfer carried wholly or partly through wire, cable, or like interstate or commerce-affecting transmission facilities (§ 15A-286(21)); protected face-to-face speech is oral; electronic communication separately includes transmitted signs, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence, excluding wire and oral communications (§ 15A-286(8)). |
A participant relies on their own consent and needs no announcement, tone, script, or writing. A nonparticipant must obtain at least one party's consent, but § 15A-287(a) prescribes no form and does not state that consent must be written or recorded. |
Beyond one-party consent, § 15A-287(b) permits access to electronic communications configured as readily accessible to the general public and permits interception of specified public, distress, public-safety, amateur, citizens-band, marine, and aeronautical radio communications. |
Willful interception without one party's consent is a Class H felony (§ 15A-287(a)). Under the structured-sentencing grid, the minimum term ranges from 4 months (mitigated, record level I) to 25 months (aggravated, level VI), with corresponding maximum terms from 14 to 39 months (§ 15A-1340.17(c)–(d)); some grid cells authorize community or intermediate punishment rather than active prison. A fine may accompany imprisonment or stand alone when community punishment is authorized, and its amount is in the court's discretion (§ 15A-1340.17(b)). |
A person whose communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation may recover actual damages, but not less than $100 per day or $1,000, whichever is higher, plus punitive damages, reasonable attorney's fees, and litigation costs; good-faith reliance on a court order or specified prosecutor representation is a complete defense (§ 15A-296). An aggrieved person may move to suppress an unlawful interception or derived evidence, and a granted motion treats it as obtained in violation of the Article (§ 15A-294(g)). |
Federal law also permits a private participant, or a person with one party's prior consent, to intercept unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). North Carolina's one-party offense text does not repeat that purpose clause, but § 15A-287(b)(3) separately recognizes interceptions allowed by federal Chapter 119. A stricter state rule may still matter on an interstate call; all-party consent is the prudent baseline when jurisdictions may differ. |
| North Dakota verified 2026-07-20 | N.D.C.C. § 12.1-15-02 prohibits intentional interception of wire or protected oral communications and knowing disclosure or use of unlawfully intercepted contents; one-party consent is a defense subject to an unlawful-purpose limit. |
One-party consent. The recorder may be a party, or one party may give prior consent, if the interception is not for a crime or other unlawful harm (§ 12.1-15-02(3)(c)). |
An oral communication is protected when the speaker exhibits an expectation against interception under circumstances justifying it (§ 12.1-15-04(5)). Wire communications have no parallel expectation qualifier. |
The criminal offense expressly covers wire and oral communications, not electronic communications. Wire means common-carrier transmission by wire, cable, or like connection; oral covers protected face-to-face speech (§§ 12.1-15-02, -04). The separate drug-investigation wiretap chapter defines electronic communications (§ 29-29.2-01). |
A participant relies on party status; otherwise one party must give prior consent. The statute prescribes no writing, script, warning tone, periodic notice, or continued-participation rule (§ 12.1-15-02(3)). |
Interception authorized by law; color-of-law interception by a participant or with one party's prior consent; private participant/one-party interception not undertaken for a crime or other unlawful harm; ordinary-course carrier equipment and hearing aids (§§ 12.1-15-02 to -04). |
Intentional unlawful interception and knowing disclosure or use are Class C felonies (§ 12.1-15-02(1)), punishable by up to 5 years, a fine up to $10,000, or both (§ 12.1-32-01(4)). Secretly loitering to overhear and repeat a building conversation to vex, annoy, or injure is separately a Class A misdemeanor (§ 12.1-15-02(2)). |
Chapter 12.1-15 contains no express private-damages section. In the separate drug-investigation wiretap framework, an aggrieved person may move to suppress an unlawful interception or derivatives, and granted material may not be received as evidence (§ 29-29.2-02(12)); privilege is preserved (§ 29-29.2-02(17)). |
North Dakota states no private interstate choice-of-law rule here. Federal law likewise permits participant or one-party recording unless the purpose is criminal or tortious; North Dakota uses 'crime or other unlawful harm' (§ 12.1-15-02(3)(c); 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). A stricter connected state's law may apply, so all-party consent is the prudent baseline. |
| Ohio verified 2026-07-20 | Ohio Revised Code §§ 2933.51–2933.66 govern wiretapping and electronic surveillance. Section 2933.52(A) prohibits purposeful interception and purposeful use of unlawfully intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communications. 'Intercept' means acquiring a communication's contents through an interception device (§ 2933.51(C)); § 2933.52(B)(4) supplies the ordinary private-participant exception. |
One-party consent. A private person may intercept when the person is a party to the communication or one party gave prior consent, provided the purpose is not a criminal offense, tortious act, or other injurious act (§ 2933.52(B)(4)). A participant therefore need not obtain the other parties' consent for an ordinary lawful recording. |
Protected in-person speech is an 'oral communication' only when the speaker expects no interception and the circumstances justify that expectation (§ 2933.51(B)). The separate 'wire communication' definition has no expectation-of-privacy qualifier. The one-party exception still permits a participant to record either category for a lawful, noninjurious purpose. |
Section 2933.52 reaches wire, oral, and electronic communications. Telephone audio carried wholly or partly through wire or similar transmission facilities is a 'wire communication'; protected face-to-face speech is an 'oral communication'; and § 2933.51(N) separately defines electronic communications to include transmitted sound, writing, images, data, or intelligence while excluding wire and oral communications. |
A participant relies on being a party and needs no consent from anyone else. A nonparticipant needs one party's prior consent. Section 2933.52(B)(4) prescribes no writing, script, tone, announcement, or duration, so it does not create a statutory beep-tone or written-consent requirement for an ordinary participant recording. |
The principal participant-facing allowance is § 2933.52(B)(4): party status or one party's prior consent. Its express limit matters—the exemption does not apply when the communication is intercepted to commit a criminal offense, tortious act, or any other injurious act. |
A purposeful interception or use that falls outside an exception is 'interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications,' a fourth-degree felony (§ 2933.52(C)). If the court imposes prison, the definite term is 6–18 months (§ 2929.14(A)(4)); the authorized fine is up to $5,000 (§ 2929.18(A)(3)(d)). |
A person whose communication is unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used may seek equitable or declaratory relief; the greater of $200 per day or $10,000, versus actual damages plus the violator's profits; punitive damages; and reasonable attorney's fees and litigation expenses (§ 2933.65(A)). The claim has a two-year discovery period and listed good-faith defenses (§ 2933.65(B)–(C)). An aggrieved person may move to suppress an unlawfully intercepted communication or derived evidence; if granted, it is not received in evidence (§ 2933.63). |
Federal law likewise permits a private participant, or a person with one party's prior consent, to intercept unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). Ohio adds an express 'other injurious act' limit. A stricter state's law may still matter on an interstate call, and this survey does not decide choice of law; obtaining every participant's consent is the prudent baseline when jurisdictions may differ. |
| Oklahoma verified 2026-07-20 | The Security of Communications Act prohibits willful interception and knowing use or disclosure of unlawfully obtained wire, oral, or electronic contents; interception requires contemporaneous aural acquisition through a device (13 O.S. §§ 176.2(9), 176.3(1)–(4)) |
One-party rule. A private person may intercept when the recorder is a party or one party gave prior consent, unless the purpose is to commit a criminal act (13 O.S. § 176.4(5)) |
An in-person oral communication is protected only when the speaker exhibits an expectation against interception under circumstances justifying it (13 O.S. § 176.2(12)); the wire and electronic definitions have no comparable expectation element |
Wire covers voice transfers carried partly through wire/cable facilities; electronic covers sounds or data sent by wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical systems unless classed as wire or oral. The Act does not separately name cellular or cordless calls (13 O.S. § 176.2(7), (14)) |
Being a party is independently sufficient; otherwise one party must give prior consent. The statute prescribes no writing, spoken script, warning tone, or fixed duration (13 O.S. § 176.4(5)) |
The private one-party exception fails when the interception's purpose is committing a criminal act; unlike federal law, the Oklahoma text does not add a tortious-purpose limit (13 O.S. § 176.4(5)) |
Class D1 felony; § 176.3 sets a fine of at least $5,000, imprisonment, or both. Section 20N(B) provides up to 5 years for the ordinary Class D1 range; specified prior felony classes raise the range to 1–7 or 2–10 years (§ 20N(C)) |
The Act's official chapter index contains no express private-damages section. Section 176.6 excludes unlawfully intercepted contents and derivatives, and § 176.13 lets an aggrieved person move to suppress unlawfully intercepted material |
Federal law permits participant or one-party-consented interception unless its purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); Oklahoma omits the federal tortious-purpose language but adds its own felony and evidence consequences. All-party consent is the prudent interstate baseline |
| Oregon verified 2026-07-20 | Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 165.535 and 165.540 (obtaining contents of communications), with a separate nonparticipant-interception offense in § 165.543. Section 165.540(1) bars obtaining a telecommunication, radio communication, or in-person 'conversation' by any device outside the statute's consent and notice rules; §§ 41.910 and 133.739 govern evidence and civil damages. |
Mixed rule. Telephone or radio communication: one participant's consent is enough (§ 165.540(1)(a)). In-person 'conversation': all participants must be 'specifically informed' that the conversation is being obtained (§ 165.540(1)(c)) — a notice rule that binds even a participant, making in-person recording effectively all-party. |
No confidentiality or expectation-of-privacy label conditions the rules. A 'conversation' is any oral communication that is not a telecommunication or radio communication (§ 165.535(1)); the in-person notice duty applies regardless of how private the setting is, subject only to the express exceptions. |
The medium picks the rule. 'Telecommunication' is transmission by wire or cable and 'radio communication' is wireless transmission (§ 165.535(3), (4)); a 'conversation' is in-person oral communication and expressly includes a communication through a video-conferencing program (§ 165.535(1), (5)). Phone and radio calls get the one-party rule; face-to-face talk and video conferences get the all-party notice rule. |
For a phone or radio call, one participant's consent suffices and no announcement is required. For an in-person conversation, no consent is required but every participant must be 'specifically informed' that the conversation is being recorded; the statute prescribes no particular words, and a participant who keeps talking after being informed is treated as adequately notified. |
The in-person notice rule (§ 165.540(1)(c)) does not apply to: recording a conversation during a felony that endangers human life (§ 165.540(5)(a)); openly recording an on-duty law-enforcement officer under the conditions in § 165.540(5)(b); public or semipublic meetings and similar proceedings recorded with an unconcealed device (§ 165.540(6)(a)); and a telephone/radio subscriber or family member acting in their own home (§ 165.540(3)). |
Violating § 165.540(1) is a Class A misdemeanor (§ 165.540(9)): up to 364 days in jail (§ 161.615(1)) and a fine up to $6,250 (§ 161.635(1)(a)). The separate offense of intercepting a wire or oral communication as a nonparticipant without any party's consent (§ 165.543) is also a Class A misdemeanor. |
Evidence obtained in violation of § 165.540 is inadmissible in Oregon courts, except to prove the unlawful interception (§ 41.910(1)). Oregon's statutory civil-damages action (§ 133.739 — actual or liquidated damages of $100 per day or $1,000, punitive damages, and attorney fees) is keyed to the court-ordered-wiretap statutes, not to a private § 165.540 violation; for that, § 133.739(3) preserves the common-law invasion-of-privacy remedy. |
Federal law permits one-party participant recording unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). Oregon matches that for phone and radio calls but is stricter for in-person conversations, which require informing every participant. Neither law decides which state governs a multistate call — inform and get consent from everyone when a stricter rule may apply. |
| Pennsylvania verified 2026-07-20 | Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 Pa.C.S. ch. 57. Section 5703 criminalizes intentional interception, disclosure, or use; § 5704(4) supplies the ordinary participant route. |
All-party prior consent: every party must consent before a participant intercepts a wire, electronic, or oral communication (§ 5704(4)). |
An in-person 'oral communication' is covered only when the speaker expects no interception and the circumstances justify that expectation (§ 5702). Wire communications do not use that oral-expectation definition. |
Telephone audio is a 'wire communication' when carried through common-carrier wire, cable, or like facilities; protected in-person speech is an 'oral communication.' Electronic communications are separately covered (§§ 5702–5704). |
Consent must be prior, but § 5704(4) prescribes no general written form, script, tone, or announce-and-continue safe harbor. Obtain clear prior consent from every party. |
A victim, witness, or licensed private detective may record on reasonable suspicion of a crime of violence when evidence may be obtained (§ 5704(17)). Business personnel may record marketing/customer-service calls for training, quality control, or monitoring with one-party consent and limited use/retention (§ 5704(15)). |
Intentional unlawful interception, disclosure, or use is a third-degree felony (§ 5703): up to 7 years' imprisonment and a $15,000 fine (§§ 1101(3), 1103(3)). |
Actual damages, but at least $100 per day or $1,000, whichever is higher; punitive damages; attorney's fees and costs; good-faith reliance defense (§ 5725). An aggrieved party may move to exclude an unlawful interception or derived evidence (§ 5721.1). |
Federal law generally permits private participant recording with one-party prior consent unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); Pennsylvania is stricter. Interstate choice of law remains fact-specific, so all-party consent is the prudent baseline. |
| Rhode Island verified 2026-07-20 | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 prohibits willful interception, attempted interception, procurement, disclosure, and use of wire, electronic, or oral communications; Chapter 12-5.1 defines the media and supplies court-order, suppression, and civil-remedy provisions. |
One-party consent. A private person may intercept when that person is a party or one party gave prior consent, unless the purpose is criminal, tortious, or any other injurious act (§ 11-35-21(c)(3)). |
An oral communication is protected only when the speaker exhibits an expectation against interception under circumstances justifying it (§ 12-5.1-1(10)). Wire and electronic communications have no separate confidentiality qualifier. |
Expressly covers wire, electronic, and oral communications. Wire means an aural transfer using wire/cable-like carrier facilities; electronic includes signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence transmitted by wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photooptical systems; oral covers protected face-to-face speech (§ 12-5.1-1). |
A participant's party status is sufficient. Otherwise one party must give prior consent. The statute prescribes no written form, script, warning tone, periodic notice, or continued-participation rule (§ 11-35-21(c)(3)). |
Normal-course carrier interception needed for service or carrier rights/property, with random monitoring limited to mechanical/service-quality checks; color-of-law one-party interception; private one-party interception subject to the harmful-purpose limit; and a public-information exception for later disclosure/use (§ 11-35-21(b)-(c)). |
Willful unlawful interception, disclosure, or use is punishable by up to 5 years' imprisonment (§ 11-35-21(a)); because the authorized term exceeds 1 year, Rhode Island classifies the offense as a felony (§ 11-1-2). Section 11-35-21 states no fine. |
A person whose communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation may recover actual damages with a floor of $100 per day or $1,000, whichever is higher, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and litigation disbursements; good-faith court-order reliance is a complete defense (§ 12-5.1-13). An aggrieved person may move to suppress an unlawful interception and derivatives (§ 12-5.1-12). |
Rhode Island states no private interstate choice-of-law rule here. Its one-party exception and criminal/tortious-purpose limit parallel federal law, but Rhode Island also says 'any other injurious act' (§ 11-35-21(c)(3); 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). A stricter connected state's law may apply, so all-party consent is the prudent baseline. |
| South Carolina verified 2026-07-20 | South Carolina's rule is the wiretap chapter of the 2002 Homeland Security Act (S.C. Code Ann. §§ 17-30-10 to -145), with defined terms in § 17-30-15. Section 17-30-20 makes it a felony to intentionally intercept 'any wire, oral, or electronic communication,' but § 17-30-30(C) exempts a person who is a party to the communication or who acts with one party's prior consent. |
One party. It is lawful for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a communication 'where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties ... has given prior consent to the interception' (§ 17-30-30(C)). Recording a call or conversation you take part in is lawful, and one participant's consent covers a recording made by someone else. Unlike federal law, this participant exemption states no exception for a recording made for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
For an in-person conversation, protection turns on privacy: an 'oral communication' is one 'uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying the expectation,' and it excludes 'any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting' (§ 17-30-15(2)). A telephone call is a 'wire communication,' defined without a privacy qualifier, so it is covered regardless of setting. The one-party rule in § 17-30-30(C) applies to both. |
The one-party rule governs wire (telephone), oral (in-person), and electronic communications alike (§§ 17-30-20, 17-30-30). An in-person 'oral communication' is protected only when the speaker had a justified expectation of privacy and was not speaking at a public meeting (§ 17-30-15(2)); a phone call is a 'wire communication' covered without that qualifier. Electronic communications configured to be readily accessible to the general public are separately exempt (§ 17-30-35). |
One party's prior consent is required, and a participant supplies it simply by taking part. Section 17-30-30(C) speaks of a party's 'prior consent' but prescribes no form—no written consent, spoken warning, script, or audible beep tone. Consent from any single participant is enough. |
Because a participant's own recording is lawful, no special evidence-gathering exception is needed, and § 17-30-30(C) attaches no criminal-purpose condition to it. Communications readily accessible to the general public and the listed radio transmissions are exempt (§ 17-30-35). Providers of wire or electronic communications service acting in the ordinary course of business are also outside the offense (§§ 17-30-15(4), 17-30-25). |
Unlawful interception is a felony (§ 17-30-20). A person who violates §§ 17-30-20 through 17-30-45 'must be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both' (§ 17-30-50(A)). A narrow set of violations involving readily accessible communications is instead a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year or $1,000 (§ 17-30-50(B)). A lawful participant recording is not an offense. |
South Carolina keeps a strong civil remedy: a person whose communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of the chapter may recover actual damages 'but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of five hundred dollars a day for each day of violation or twenty-five thousand dollars, whichever is greater,' plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney's fees (§ 17-30-135), subject to a five-year limitations period and a good-faith-reliance defense. On evidence, an intercepted communication and anything derived from it 'may [not] be received in evidence' in any South Carolina proceeding (§ 17-30-65(A)). |
South Carolina's one-party rule tracks federal law, which lets a participant, or a person with one party's prior consent, record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d))—a purpose limit South Carolina's own participant text omits. A call reaching an all-party-consent state can trigger that stricter law, so consent from everyone is the prudent baseline for an interstate call. This survey does not decide which state's law governs. |
| South Dakota verified 2026-07-20 | SDCL ch. 23A-35A governs interception of wire, electronic, and protected oral communications. Section 23A-35A-20 makes intentional eavesdropping-device recording by a nonparticipant without one party's consent a Class 5 felony. |
Participant recording is permitted: a sender or receiver may record a communication, and a person present may record a conversation or discussion. A nonparticipant needs one sender's, receiver's, or conversation party's consent (§ 23A-35A-20). |
For face-to-face speech, an 'oral communication' requires the speaker to exhibit an expectation against interception under circumstances justifying it (§ 23A-35A-1(10)). The wire and electronic definitions have no parallel expectation language. |
The chapter defines wire, electronic, and oral communications; electronic includes transmitted signs, signals, writings, images, sounds, data, or intelligence. Section 23A-35A-20 covers a sender/receiver's 'communication' and a person present at a conversation/discussion, without a separate cellular, cordless, or landline rule. |
A participant relies on sender, receiver, or present-person status and needs no additional statutory notice. For a nonparticipant, § 23A-35A-20 requires one party's consent but prescribes no writing, advance timing, script, warning tone, or continued-participation rule. |
Court-authorized interception; normal common-carrier services and equipment; switchboard functions; carrier construction, maintenance, operation, billing, and fraud protection; subpoena or lawful-authority responses; and technical assistance for an authorized interception (§ 23A-35A-21). Ordinary-course carrier/subscriber equipment and hearing aids are excluded from 'eavesdropping device' (§ 23A-35A-1(6)). |
Intentional recording by a nonparticipant without one party's consent is a Class 5 felony (§ 23A-35A-20), punishable by up to 5 years in a state correctional facility and a fine up to $10,000 (§ 22-6-1(8)). |
Chapter 23A-35A's official section index contains no express private-damages or general suppression section. Section 23A-35A-17 authorizes court testimony for interceptions made in accordance with governing law; § 23A-35A-19 preserves privilege whether an interception complied with or violated the chapter. |
These South Dakota sections do not select the governing law for an interstate call. Federal law generally permits participant or one-party recording unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); another connected state may be stricter, so all-party consent is the prudent baseline. |
| Tennessee verified 2026-07-20 | Tennessee's rule is the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act of 1994 (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-13-601 to -604), with defined terms in § 40-6-303. Section 39-13-601(a) makes it an offense to intentionally intercept 'any wire, oral, or electronic communication,' but § 39-13-601(b)(5) exempts a participant or anyone acting with one party's prior consent. A separate section, § 39-13-604, covers recordings of cellular and cordless calls. |
One party. It is lawful for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication 'where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties ... has given prior consent' (§ 39-13-601(b)(5)). So recording a call or conversation you take part in is lawful, and so is recording with any one participant's consent—unless the recording is made for a criminal or tortious purpose. |
For an in-person conversation, protection turns on privacy: an 'oral communication' is one 'uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying that expectation' (§ 40-6-303). A telephone call is a 'wire communication,' which carries no privacy qualifier and is covered regardless of setting. Either way, the participant rule in § 39-13-601(b)(5) makes one party's consent enough. |
The same one-party rule governs wire (telephone), oral (in-person), and electronic communications (§ 39-13-601). In-person 'oral communication' is protected only when the speaker had a justified expectation of privacy (§ 40-6-303); a phone call is covered without that qualifier. Section 39-13-604 separately reaches a recording of a call between cellular, cordless, and landline phones, again requiring 'the consent of at least one (1) party.' |
One party's prior consent is required, and a participant supplies it simply by taking part. The statute speaks of a party's 'prior consent' (§ 39-13-601(b)(5)) but prescribes no form—no written consent, spoken warning, script, or audible beep tone. Consent from any single participant is enough. |
The participant exemption is lost if the recording is made 'for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act' (§ 39-13-601(b)(5)), so there is no separate evidence-gathering exception to invoke. The statute also does not restrict a parent or legal guardian who installs software on a computer they own solely to monitor a minor child's internet use, or ordinary business disclosures to vendors (§ 39-13-601(d), added 2024). Providers of communications service acting in the normal course of business are exempt (§ 39-13-601(b)). |
Unlawful interception under § 39-13-601(a) is a Class D felony (§ 39-13-602). A Class D felony carries a prison term of 'not less than two (2) nor more than twelve (12) years' plus a fine of up to $5,000 (§ 40-35-111(b)(4)). That felony exposure—not a misdemeanor—applies to intercepting a communication you are not a party to and have no consent for; a lawful participant recording is not an offense. |
Tennessee no longer has a statutory civil action for unlawful recording: 2024 Public Chapter 1045 (effective May 28, 2024) deleted former § 39-13-603, which had allowed damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees. What remains statutory is the evidence rule—an intercepted communication and any evidence derived from it may not 'be received in evidence' if disclosing it would violate the Act (§ 40-6-307). A person harmed by an unlawful recording is otherwise left to any available common-law claim. |
Tennessee's one-party rule tracks federal law, which lets a participant, or a person with one party's prior consent, record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). A call reaching an all-party-consent state can trigger that stricter law, so consent from everyone is the prudent baseline for an interstate call. This survey does not decide which state's law governs. |
| Texas verified 2026-07-20 | Texas Penal Code § 16.02 (Title 4, ch. 16) makes it an offense to intentionally intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, or to disclose or use the contents of a communication the person knows was unlawfully intercepted. 'Intercept' means the aural or other acquisition of a communication's contents through an interception device (Code Crim. Proc. art. 18A.001). A parallel civil statute, Civil Practice & Remedies Code ch. 123, lets a party sue over an interception. The scheme targets nonconsensual interception; an ordinary participant is protected by the party/one-party defense below. |
One-party consent. Section 16.02(c)(4) makes it an affirmative defense that a person not acting under color of law intercepts a communication if '(A) the person is a party to the communication; or (B) one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing an unlawful act.' So a participant may record their own call or conversation without notifying anyone, and a nonparticipant may record with any one party's consent — but never to commit an unlawful act. |
The trigger depends on the medium. An 'oral communication' (in-person speech) is protected only when 'uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying that expectation' (art. 18A.001) — a justified, reasonable expectation of privacy. A 'wire communication' (telephone audio carried through carrier facilities) has no such expectation qualifier and is protected regardless. Because Texas is one-party, a participant may record either way; the privacy trigger matters mainly to whether a nonparticipant's interception of in-person speech is unlawful. |
The one-party rule is the same for telephone calls and face-to-face speech. A 'wire communication' is an aural transfer made 'wholly or partly' through carrier wire, cable, or similar facilities (art. 18A.001), which reaches landline and cellular telephone calls; in-person talk is an 'oral communication'; and messages carried by an electronic system are 'electronic communications' — all three are covered by § 16.02. Stored messages and texts are handled by separate stored-communication provisions (Penal Code § 16.04) and are outside this audio question. |
The statute prescribes no form of consent or notice. A participant needs no announcement, tone, script, or written consent — being a party to the communication is itself the defense under § 16.02(c)(4)(A). A nonparticipant needs the prior consent of one party, but the statute does not dictate how that consent is expressed. Do not read an announcement or beep-tone requirement into Texas law; there is none for a participant recording. |
The party/one-party defense in § 16.02(c)(4) is itself the main allowance for ordinary people, and its key limit is that a one-party recording made 'for the purpose of committing an unlawful act' loses the defense. Section 16.02 also exempts communication common carriers and providers acting in the ordinary course of business and interceptions authorized by a court order under Chapter 18A. Law-enforcement and judicially authorized interceptions are outside an ordinary participant's scope. |
Unlawful interception, disclosure, or use under § 16.02 is a felony of the second degree (§ 16.02(f)). A second-degree felony is punishable by imprisonment for 2 to 20 years and, in addition, a fine not to exceed $10,000 (Penal Code § 12.33). The narrower offenses of manufacturing or selling an interception device (subsection (d)) and obstructing an authorized interception (subsection (g)) are state jail felonies. |
Civil: under Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 123.002, a party to a communication may sue a person who intercepts it, or who uses or divulges the contents knowing it was unlawfully obtained. A successful plaintiff recovers an injunction, statutory damages of $10,000 for each occurrence, all actual damages in excess of $10,000, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs (§ 123.004). Evidence: these provisions contain no statutory suppression rule aimed at a participant's own recording, which is lawful under the § 16.02(c)(4) party defense; an unlawful interception instead exposes the interceptor to the § 123.004 civil damages and second-degree-felony liability. |
Federal law permits a private party (or a nonparticipant with one party's consent) to record unless the purpose is a criminal or tortious act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); Texas's one-party rule aligns with that floor, with its own 'unlawful act' limit. For a purely Texas call the two rules agree. But if another participant is in an all-party-consent state, that state's stricter rule may apply, and this survey does not decide which state's law governs an interstate call — obtaining every participant's consent is the prudent baseline when jurisdictions may differ. |
| Utah verified 2026-07-20 | Utah's Interception of Communications Act prohibits intentional or knowing interception and knowing use or disclosure of unlawfully intercepted wire, electronic, or protected oral communications; interception requires acquisition through a device (§§ 77-23a-3(10), 77-23a-4(1)) |
One-party rule. A private person may intercept when the recorder is a party or one party gave prior consent, unless the purpose is committing a criminal or tortious act (§ 77-23a-4(7)(b)) |
An oral communication is protected only when the speaker exhibits an expectation against interception under circumstances justifying it (§ 77-23a-3(13)); wire and electronic definitions have no comparable expectation element |
Wire covers aural transfers carried partly through wire/cable facilities and electronic storage; electronic broadly covers transmitted sounds and data. The radio portion of a cordless handset-to-base call is expressly excluded from both definitions (§ 77-23a-3(5), (19)) |
Being a party is independently sufficient; otherwise one party must give prior consent. The statute prescribes no writing, spoken script, warning tone, or fixed duration (§ 77-23a-4(7)(b)) |
The private one-party exception fails for a criminal or tortious purpose. Other express exceptions include electronic communications configured for general-public access and specified readily accessible public radio communications (§ 77-23a-4(7)–(8)) |
Ordinary violation: third-degree felony (§ 77-23a-4(10)(a)), punishable by up to 5 years and a fine up to $5,000 (§§ 76-3-203(3), 76-3-301(1)(b)); narrower first-offense reductions apply to specified unscrambled radio interceptions |
Civil relief may include equitable relief, punitive damages, fees/costs, and the greater of actual damages plus profits or $100/day or $10,000; 2-year discovery period and good-faith defense (§ 77-23a-11). Section 77-23a-7 excludes unlawfully intercepted contents and derivatives |
Utah and federal law both permit participant or one-party-consented interception unless its purpose is criminal or tortious (Utah Code § 77-23a-4(7)(b); 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). Utah adds its own felony, damages, and evidence rules; all-party consent is the prudent interstate baseline |
| Vermont verified 2026-07-20 | No Vermont statute governs audio recording of calls or conversations—Title 13 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) has no wiretapping, eavesdropping, or interception chapter. The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2522) supplies the operative rule. Separate Vermont laws cover different ground: 13 V.S.A. § 2605 (voyeurism) reaches visual recording of intimate areas, and Title 13 chapter 232 (Electronic Communication Privacy Act) governs government access to electronic data. |
One party, under federal law. No Vermont statute requires all-party consent; 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) lets a person who is a party, or who has one party's prior consent, record a wire, oral, or electronic communication unless the purpose is a criminal or tortious act. |
Under federal law an in-person 'oral communication' is protected only when the speaker has a justified expectation it will not be intercepted; public speech is outside it. Vermont's Constitution (Chapter I, Article 11) gives the home heightened privacy, but only against warrantless police recording (State v. Geraw; State v. Blow)—it is not a private all-party rule. |
No Vermont distinction; the federal one-party rule applies alike to telephone, in-person, and electronic communications. Under the federal Act 'electronic communication' reaches transfers of writing, images, sounds, and data such as text and email. |
No Vermont-prescribed method—no tone, script, or written form. Under federal law a participant's own consent suffices; if you rely on another party, that party's prior consent is required. |
The federal criminal-or-tortious-purpose limit removes the participant exception (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). Distinct Vermont statutes address other conduct: § 2605 (visual voyeurism of intimate areas) and the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (government access), not ordinary participant recording. |
Vermont has no recording-consent crime. Under the federal Wiretap Act, an unlawful interception, disclosure, or use is punishable by a fine, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both (18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)(a)). |
No Vermont recording-specific civil claim. The federal Act allows a civil action (18 U.S.C. § 2520) for the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits, $100 per day of violation, or $10,000, plus punitive damages and attorneys' fees. General privacy torts may also apply. No Vermont statute makes a lawful participant recording inadmissible. |
Because Vermont has no statute, the federal one-party rule is the operative floor (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). Another participant may be in an all-party-consent state whose stricter law can apply, so obtaining every participant's consent is the prudent baseline for a multistate call. |
| Virginia verified 2026-07-20 | Va. Code §§ 19.2-61 to 19.2-70.3 (Interception of Wire, Electronic or Oral Communications). § 19.2-62(A) makes intentionally intercepting, disclosing, or using a wire, electronic, or oral communication a Class 6 felony; § 19.2-62(B)(2) exempts a participant or one-party-consent recording. |
One party. It is not a criminal offense for a person to intercept where that person is a party, or one party gave prior consent (§ 19.2-62(B)(2)); no other party need consent or be told. |
Only an 'oral' (in-person) communication carries a privacy qualifier—it must be uttered with an expectation, under justifying circumstances, that it is not subject to interception (§ 19.2-61). Wire (telephone) and electronic communications have no such qualifier. |
Same one-party rule for wire (telephone), oral (in-person), and electronic communications (§§ 19.2-61, 19.2-62). Publicly accessible electronic communications and listed radio communications are outside the offense (§ 19.2-62(B)(3)). |
Only one party's consent is required and a participant is that party; the chapter prescribes no written form, tone, script, or notice before recording. |
No special crime-evidence exception for participants. Statutory carve-outs cover communication-provider operations, publicly accessible electronic and listed radio communications, identifying harmful interference, and authorized pen-register or trap-and-trace use (§ 19.2-62(B)). |
Class 6 felony (§ 19.2-62(A)): one to five years' imprisonment, or at the discretion of the jury or the court up to 12 months in jail and a fine up to $2,500, either or both (§ 18.2-10(f)). |
Civil action for actual damages but not less than liquidated damages of $400/day or $4,000 (whichever is higher)—doubled to $800/day or $8,000 for communications between spouses, attorney-client, healing-arts, counseling, or clergy—plus punitive damages and attorney's fees (§ 19.2-69). An unlawfully intercepted wire or oral communication may not be received in evidence (§ 19.2-65). |
Federal law also allows one-party recording (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)), matching Virginia. A call reaching an all-party-consent state may trigger that stricter law, so consent from everyone is the prudent baseline for an interstate call. |
| Washington verified 2026-07-20 | Washington Privacy Act, RCW ch. 9.73. RCW 9.73.030(1) makes it unlawful to intercept or record either a 'private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals' or a 'private conversation' by any recording or transmitting device, without first obtaining consent of all participants. It reaches an ordinary participant's own recording, not only a third party tapping a line; the operative acts are intercepting or recording a private communication/conversation without all-party consent. |
All-party consent. A participant must obtain the consent of every participant before recording a private communication or private conversation (RCW 9.73.030(1)). This is an all-party rule, not merely 'two-party': the statute requires consent of 'all the participants' / 'all the persons engaged in the conversation,' which can exceed two people. |
Protection turns on the communication or conversation being 'private.' The statute does not define 'private,' so the trigger is fact- and case-law-dependent: Washington courts ask whether a party had a subjective expectation of privacy that was reasonable under the circumstances. Conversations that are not private (for example, those a speaker should expect to be overheard or recorded) fall outside the all-party requirement, but that line is a case-law question, not a bright-line statutory list. |
The all-party rule is the same for telephone audio and face-to-face speech. RCW 9.73.030(1)(a) covers a private communication transmitted 'by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device ... by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit ... regardless how such device is powered or actuated' (reaching landline, cellular, cordless, and radio audio), and (1)(b) separately covers a private 'conversation' in person. There is no separate section stripping the privacy trigger for a named class of ordinary calls. |
Consent must be obtained first (prior consent), but the statute supplies a specific safe harbor: where all-party consent is needed, it 'shall be considered obtained whenever one party has announced to all other parties ... in any reasonably effective manner, that such communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted' — and if the conversation is recorded, that announcement 'shall also be recorded' (RCW 9.73.030(3)). No particular script, written form, or audible tone is required; an announced-and-recorded notice suffices. |
One-party consent is enough for conversations RCW 9.73.030(2) lists: those of an emergency nature (reporting a fire, medical emergency, crime, or disaster); those conveying threats of extortion, blackmail, bodily harm, or other unlawful demands; those occurring anonymously, repeatedly, or at an extremely inconvenient hour; and hostage or barricaded-person communications. Separately, RCW 9.73.030(4) deems bona fide news-gathering employees to have consent if consent is expressly given or the recording device is readily apparent or obvious. Law-enforcement exceptions (RCW 9.73.090) are outside a participant's scope. |
Violating RCW 9.73.030 is a gross misdemeanor (RCW 9.73.080(1)). A Washington gross misdemeanor is punishable by up to 364 days in county jail, a fine of up to $5,000, or both (RCW 9A.20.021(2)). |
Civil: a person injured in business, person, or reputation may sue for actual damages, including mental pain and suffering, OR liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation up to $1,000, plus a reasonable attorney's fee and costs (RCW 9.73.060). Evidence: information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030 is inadmissible in any civil or criminal case in Washington courts, except with the permission of the person whose rights were violated in a damages action, or in a national-security criminal case (RCW 9.73.050). |
Federal law permits a participant not acting under color of law to record with one-party consent unless the recording is made to commit a criminal or tortious act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) — a permissive floor. Washington's all-party rule is stricter and can still apply to a private Washington conversation even where federal law or a one-party state would allow it. This survey does not decide which state's law governs an interstate call; when Washington may apply, treat all-party consent as the prudent baseline. |
| West Virginia verified 2026-07-20 | W. Va. Code ch. 62, art. 1D (Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act); § 62-1D-3 defines the offenses and the party-consent exception, and § 62-1D-12 the civil action. |
One party. It is lawful to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party or one party has given prior consent, unless the recording is for a criminal or tortious purpose (§ 62-1D-3(e)). |
An oral (in-person) communication is protected only when uttered under a justified expectation against interception (§ 62-1D-2(i)). A wire communication has no such qualifier, though the radio portion between a cordless handset and its base is carved out of the wire definition. |
The one-party rule applies to wire, oral, and electronic communications alike (§ 62-1D-3). 'Wire communication' covers ordinary telephone calls; a face-to-face conversation is an oral communication; texts and data are electronic communications (§ 62-1D-2). |
Being a party is the lawful basis; otherwise one party must give prior consent (§ 62-1D-3(e)). No form, tone, or script is prescribed, and ordinary consensual recorders are excluded from the definition of an intercepting device (§ 62-1D-2(e)(3)). |
Communications-carrier operations necessary to render service or protect the carrier (§ 62-1D-3(c)); court-authorized interceptions with provider assistance (§ 62-1D-3(d)). The party-consent rule in § 62-1D-3(e) is the ordinary-person exception. |
Unlawful interception, disclosure, or use is a felony (§ 62-1D-3(b)): imprisonment in the penitentiary for not more than 5 years, or a fine not more than $10,000, or both. |
A person whose communication is unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, or used may recover actual damages but not less than $100 per day of violation, plus punitive damages if proper and reasonable attorney's fees and costs (§ 62-1D-12). A recording you lawfully make as a party is not an unlawful interception. |
West Virginia's one-party rule tracks federal law, which lets a participant or a person with one party's consent record unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). A stricter state on the other end of an interstate call may still apply, so all-party consent is the prudent baseline. |
| Wisconsin verified 2026-07-20 | Wis. Stat. §§ 968.27 and 968.31 govern intentional device-based acquisition of wire, electronic, and protected oral communications and knowing disclosure or use of unlawfully intercepted contents; § 885.365 separately controls recorded telephone evidence in civil actions |
One-party rule. A private person may intercept when the recorder is a party or one party gave prior consent, unless the purpose is criminal, tortious, or otherwise injurious (§ 968.31(2)(c)) |
An in-person oral communication is protected only when the speaker exhibits an expectation against interception under circumstances justifying it (§ 968.27(12)); the statutory wire and electronic definitions do not contain that expectation element |
Wire communications include aural transfers carried partly through wire/cable facilities and their electronic storage; electronic communications broadly include transmitted sounds and data. The handset-to-base radio portion of a cordless call is excluded from the electronic-communication definition (§ 968.27(4), (17)) |
Being a party is independently sufficient for legality; otherwise one party must give prior consent. Section 968.31(2)(c) prescribes no writing, script, or tone. Separately, a § 885.365(2)(a) civil-evidence exception requires contemporaneous notice that the call is recorded and may be used in court, or a qualifying connector producing a tone about every 15 seconds |
The private one-party exception fails when the recording's purpose is criminal, tortious, or otherwise injurious. Other express exceptions cover provider operations, public-access electronic or radio communications, and interference tracing (§ 968.31(2)(a), (d), (e), (g)) |
Intentional unlawful interception, knowing disclosure or use, and intentional alteration under § 968.31(1) are Class H felonies: up to 6 years' imprisonment, a fine up to $10,000, or both (§ 939.50(3)(h)) |
Section 968.31(2m) provides actual damages with a floor of $100 per day or $1,000, whichever is higher, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs. Section 885.365 restricts recorded telephone evidence in civil actions; official § 968.29 annotations also say lawful one-party recordings generally are not admissible as evidence-in-chief without statutory authorization, subject to narrow exceptions |
Federal law permits a participant or one-party-consented recording unless its purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); Wisconsin adds an 'other injurious act' purpose limit and distinct evidence rules. Choice of law is fact-specific, so all-party consent is the prudent interstate baseline |
| Wyoming verified 2026-07-20 | Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-3-702, part of the Communication Interception Act (§§ 7-3-701 to 7-3-712), makes it a crime to intentionally intercept, disclose, or use any wire, oral, or electronic communication; definitions are in § 7-3-701 and remedies in § 7-3-710. A participant or one-party-consented recording is excepted. |
One party. Section 7-3-702(b)(iv) says nothing prohibits 'any person from intercepting an oral, wire or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication or where one (1) of the parties ... has given prior consent,' unless the interception is for a criminal or tortious act. A participant may record. |
An in-person 'oral communication' is protected only when 'uttered by a person who reasonably expects and circumstances justify the expectation that the communication is not subject to interception' (§ 7-3-701(a)(xi)); public speech with no reasonable expectation of privacy is outside it. A telephone (wire) communication carries no such qualifier. |
The one-party rule is the same for wire (telephone), oral (in-person), and electronic communications. 'Electronic communication' is broad—any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence (§ 7-3-701). Only the in-person 'oral' category carries the expectation-of-privacy qualifier; a telephone call is a 'wire communication' without it. |
No form of consent is prescribed—no tone, script, or written notice. A participant supplies consent by being a party; if you rely on someone else's agreement instead, § 7-3-702(b)(iv) requires that party's 'prior consent.' |
Besides the participant/one-party-consent exception, § 7-3-702(b) excepts a switchboard operator or communication-service provider acting in the normal course (a provider serving the public may not use service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service-quality checks), provider assistance under a court order, and FCC monitoring. A participant needs only the (b)(iv) exception. |
A violation is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both (§ 7-3-702(f)). A reduced misdemeanor—fine up to $750, up to six months, or both—applies only to intercepting the radio portion of a cellular call, a cordless handset-to-base signal, a public land mobile radio, or a paging communication. |
Section 7-3-710 gives a person whose communication is unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, or used a civil action for actual damages but not less than $1,000 per day of violation, plus punitive damages and attorneys' fees; good-faith reliance on a court order is a complete defense. The Act is the exclusive means of authorizing interception for investigation (§ 7-3-711); a lawful one-party recording is permitted, so neither the damages remedy nor the crime reaches it. |
Federal law lets a private party record with one party's prior consent unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); Wyoming's rule is also one-party with the same criminal-or-tortious limit. Another participant may sit in an all-party state, so no recorder-location shortcut resolves an interstate call—get everyone's consent as the prudent baseline. |
All 51 jurisdictions verified. Each state page shows the statute text and verification date behind its row.
Have a specific situation?
A 50-state comparison shows the landscape. Ezel answers your exact question under your state's law, applied to your facts, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.