Last reviewed September 2024

People and businesses may have legitimate reasons for recording phone calls or other conversations in various circumstances. Since this activity raises privacy concerns, most states have enacted laws that describe who must consent to a recording, often called an “interception.” A majority of states require only one-party consent. This means that a party to the conversation can record it without getting the consent of anyone else, while a non-party can record it if they get consent from just one party. In contrast, a smaller group of states requires all-party consent. This means that everyone involved in the conversation must consent to the recording.

The consent rules tend to contain some narrow exceptions. These may involve certain law enforcement activities or emergency responses, among others. Furthermore, some states require consent only in situations involving a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The main federal law on this topic is 18 U.S. Code Section 2511, which prohibits intentionally intercepting any wire, oral, or electronic communication. This generally carries up to five years of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 2520 provides for civil damages.) However, the law does not apply when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of federal law or the law of any state. In other words, this is a one-party consent statute, like the laws in most states.

Violating a state law also may lead to severe penalties, potentially including years in prison. Thus, anyone considering recording a conversation should understand what the law in the state at issue requires. If a phone call extends across state lines, they may want to comply with the most restrictive law to avoid a risk of liability. (Courts in different states have reached different conclusions about which law should apply in these cases.)

Click on a state below to find out more about consent for recording conversations there.

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Florida
• Georgia
• Hawaii
• Idaho
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• New York
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Vermont
• Virginia
• Washington
• Washington, D.C.
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

Alabama Recording Laws

Alabama is a one-party consent state.

Code of Alabama Section 13A-11-30 defines prohibited eavesdropping in part as recording any part of the private communication of others without the consent of at least one person engaged in the communication. This is a Class A misdemeanor, which carries up to one year in jail.

Alaska Recording Laws

Alaska is a one-party consent state.

Alaska Statutes Section 42.20.310 prohibits using an eavesdropping device to record any part of an oral conversation, whether conducted in person or by phone, without the consent of a party to the conversation. This is a Class A misdemeanor, which carries up to one year in jail. In Palmer v. State, the Alaska Supreme Court held that the eavesdropping statute was intended to address only third-party interception of communications and thus does not apply to a party to a conversation.

Arizona Recording Laws

Arizona is a one-party consent state.

Arizona Revised Statutes Section 13-3005 prohibits intentionally intercepting a wire or electronic communication to which the person is not a party without the consent of a sender or receiver. It also prohibits intentionally intercepting a conversation or discussion at which the person is not present without the consent of a party to the conversation or discussion. A violation is a Class 5 felony, which carries a presumptive prison term of 1.5 years with a nine-month minimum and a two-year maximum. (Meanwhile, Section 12-731 provides for civil damages.)

Section 13-3012 explicitly provides that it is legal to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication with the consent of a party to the communication or a person who is present during the communication.

Arkansas Recording Laws

Arkansas is a one-party consent state.

Arkansas Code Section 5-60-120 generally prohibits intercepting a communication (or recording or possessing a recording of the communication) unless the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent. A violation is a Class A misdemeanor, which carries up to one year in jail.

California Recording Laws

California is an all-party consent state.

California Penal Code Section 632 prohibits intentionally recording a confidential communication without the consent of all parties to the communication. This applies regardless of whether the communication occurs in the presence of the parties or by means of a phone or other device. A violation carries up to one year of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 637.2 provides for civil damages.) A “confidential communication” means a communication that occurs in circumstances that may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication wants it to be confined to the parties involved. It does not include any circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that it may be overheard or recorded.

General Order 107-B of the California Public Utilities Commission provides that phone recording is allowed when all the parties to the conversation give their express prior consent, or when notice of the recording is given to the parties by one of the methods required in the order. These include using an automatic tone warning device that produces a “beep tone” that is audible to all parties and repeated at regular intervals.

In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that the all-party consent rule applies to a conversation between someone in California and someone in a one-party consent state.

Section 632.7 separately prohibits recording communications involving at least one cordless or cellular phone without the consent of all parties. The confidentiality of the communication does not matter under this statute. A violation carries up to one year of imprisonment.

Colorado Recording Laws

Colorado is a one-party consent state.

Colorado Code Section 18-9-303 prohibits anyone who is not a sender or receiver from knowingly overhearing or recording a telephone or electronic communication without the consent of either a sender or receiver. Section 18-9-304 prohibits a person who is not visibly present from knowingly overhearing or recording a conversation or discussion without the consent of at least one of the principal parties. Either of these offenses is a Class 2 misdemeanor, which carries up to 120 days of imprisonment.

Connecticut Recording Laws

Connecticut is a one-party consent state for the purposes of criminal liability, but it imposes civil liability for recording phone calls without all-party consent.

Connecticut General Statutes Section 53a-189 prohibits unlawfully engaging in wiretapping or mechanical overhearing of a conversation. This is a class D felony, which carries up to five years of imprisonment. “Wiretapping” is defined in Section 53a-187 as someone other than a sender or receiver intentionally overhearing or recording a phone communication without the consent of the sender or receiver. The same statute defines “mechanical overhearing” as someone who is not present overhearing or recording a conversation or discussion without the consent of at least one party.

However, Section 52-570d generally imposes civil liability for recording an oral private phone communication unless this is preceded by consent of all parties to the communication, and this prior consent is obtained in writing or is part of and obtained at the start of the recording. (There are exceptions for verbal notification recorded at the beginning that is part of the communication by the recording party, or for the use of an automatic tone warning device that automatically produces a signal at 15-second intervals.) Someone affected by a violation of this law may bring a lawsuit for damages, costs, and a reasonable attorney’s fee.

Delaware Recording Laws

Delaware is arguably an all-party consent state, but there is some ambiguity.

11 Delaware Code Section 1335 prohibits intercepting a phone message, letter, or private conversation without the consent of all parties. This is a Class A misdemeanor, which carries up to one year of incarceration. However, the federal trial court in Delaware found in U.S. v. Vespe that the drafters of Section 1335 were attempting to emulate the parallel federal statute, which does not prohibit the recording of phone conversations made with the consent of one party. This case involved a person recording their own conversation.

In addition, Section 2402 generally makes it a Class E felony, which carries up to five years, to intentionally intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication. There is an exception when the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties has given prior consent, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of federal law, the law of any state, or the law of any local government. (Meanwhile, Section 2409 provides for civil damages.)

Florida Recording Laws

Florida is an all-party consent state.

Florida Statutes Section 934.03 prohibits intentionally intercepting any wire, oral, or electronic communication. This is generally a third-degree felony, which carries up to five years of imprisonment. In certain circumstances, though, the charge is downgraded to a misdemeanor. (Meanwhile, Section 934.10 provides for civil damages.) However, the statute also provides that it is lawful to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when all the parties to the communication have given prior consent.

Georgia Recording Laws

Georgia is a one-party consent state.

Georgia Code Section 16-11-62 generally prohibits intentionally overhearing or recording the private conversation of someone else if it originates in a private place. A violation of this law is a felony that carries 1-5 years of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, although the statute does not explicitly discuss civil liability, courts have found that eavesdropping victims can bring civil actions.) However, Section 16-11-66 provides an exception when the person is a party to the communication, or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent.

Hawaii Recording Laws

The main law provides for one-party consent, while a distinctive law applies to "private places."

Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 803-42 generally prohibits intentionally intercepting any wire, oral, or electronic communication. This is a class C felony, which carries up to five years of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 803-48 provides for civil damages.) However, there is an exception when the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of federal or Hawaii law.

Section 711-1111 prohibits using a device outside a private place for recording sounds originating in that place that would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible outside, without the consent of the person or people entitled to privacy there. It also prohibits using a recording device in a private place without the consent of the person or people entitled to privacy there. A violation is a misdemeanor, which carries up to one year of imprisonment. A "private place" is defined as a place where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance, but not a place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access.

Idaho Recording Laws

Idaho is a one-party consent state.

Idaho Code Section 18-6702 prohibits willfully intercepting any wire, electronic, or oral communication. A violation is a felony that carries up to five years of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 18-6709 provides for civil damages.) However, there is an exception when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent.

Illinois Recording Laws

Illinois is generally an all-party consent state.

720 Illinois Compiled Statutes Section 5/14-2 prohibits knowingly and intentionally doing any of the following activities:

• Using an eavesdropping device in a surreptitious manner to record any part of a private conversation to which the person is not a party, unless they have the consent of all the parties to the private conversation
• Using an eavesdropping device in a surreptitious manner to record any part of a private conversation to which the person is a party, unless they have the consent of all other parties to the private conversation
• Intercepting or recording in a surreptitious manner any private electronic communication to which the person is not a party, unless they have the consent of all the parties to the private electronic communication

Section 5/14-1 defines “private conversation” as an oral communication between two or more people, whether in person or transmitted by wire, when one or more of the parties intended the communication to be private under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation. The statute defines “private electronic communication” as any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence transmitted by a wire, radio, pager, computer, or other system when the sender or receiver intends the communication to be private under circumstances reasonably justifying that expectation. The all-party consent rule does not appear to apply to a party to a “private electronic communication,” since the statute does not address this scenario.

A first violation of Section 5/14-2 is a Class 4 felony, which carries 1-3 years of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 5/14-6 provides for civil damages.)

Indiana Recording Laws

Indiana is a one-party consent state for phone calls and electronic communications but does not explicitly address in-person conversations.

Indiana Code Section 35-33.5-5-5 provides that knowingly or intentionally intercepting a communication is unlawful interception. This is a Level 5 felony, which carries 1-6 years of imprisonment and an advisory sentence of three years. (Meanwhile, Section 35-33.5-5-4 provides for civil damages.) However, Section 35-31.5-2-176 defines “interception” as a person other than a sender or receiver intentionally recording an electronic communication, which includes a wire communication, without the consent of the sender or receiver. This makes one-party consent an exception to the law.

Note that the statute does not appear to address recording of in-person conversations.

Iowa Recording Laws

Iowa is a one-party consent state.

Iowa Code Section 808B.2 prohibits willfully intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication. This is a class D felony, which carries up to five years of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 808B.8 provides for civil damages.) However, there is an exception if the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent.

In addition, Section 727.8 prohibits recording or otherwise intercepting a conversation or communication of any kind by electronic or mechanical means without any right or authority to do so. This is a serious misdemeanor, which carries up to one year of imprisonment. However, there is an exception for the sender or recipient of a message, or for someone who is openly present and participating in or listening to a communication.

Kansas Recording Laws

Kansas is a one-party consent state.

Kansas Statutes Section 21-6101 prohibits knowingly and unlawfully intercepting a message by telephone or other means of private communication without the consent of the sender or receiver. It also prohibits installing or using a device for recording sounds originating in a private place without the consent of the people entitled to privacy there. In State v. Roudybush, the Kansas Supreme Court interpreted this provision to indicate one-party consent. A violation is a class A misdemeanor, which carries up to one year of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 22-2518 provides for civil damages based on a violation of a related statute.)

Kentucky Recording Laws

Kentucky is a one-party consent state.

Kentucky Revised Statutes Section 526.020 prohibits intentionally using any device to eavesdrop. This is a Class D felony, which carries a maximum prison term of 1-5 years. However, Section 526.010 defines eavesdropping as recording any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one party.

Louisiana Recording Laws

Louisiana is a one-party consent state.

Louisiana Revised Statutes Section 15:1303 prohibits willfully intercepting any wire, electronic, or oral communication. A violation carries 2-10 years of imprisonment at hard labor. (Meanwhile, Section 15:1312 provides for civil damages.) However, there is an exception when the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act under federal or Louisiana law, or any other injurious act.

Maine Recording Laws

The main law provides for one-party consent, while a distinctive law applies to "private places."

15 Maine Revised Statutes Section 710 generally prohibits intentionally or knowingly intercepting any wire or oral communication. This is a Class C crime, which carries up to five years of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 711 provides for civil damages.) However, Section 709 defines “intercept” to exclude recordings by the sender or receiver, or a person given prior authority by the sender or receiver.

17-A Maine Revised Statutes Section 511 prohibits using a device outside a private place for recording sounds originating in that place that would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible outside the place, without the consent of the person or people entitled to privacy there. It also prohibits using a recording device in a private place without the consent of the person or people entitled to privacy there. A violation is a Class D crime, which carries up to 364 days of imprisonment. A "private place" means a place where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from surveillance, including changing or dressing rooms, bathrooms, and similar places.

Maryland Recording Laws

Maryland is an all-party consent state.

Maryland Courts & Judicial Proceedings Code Section 10-402 prohibits willfully intercepting any wire, oral, or electronic communication. A violation is a felony that carries up to five years of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 10-410 provides for civil damages.) However, the law does not apply if a person is a party to the communication, and all the parties to the communication have given prior consent, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act that violates federal or Maryland law.

Section 10-401 defines an “oral communication” as a private conversation. In Agnew v. State, the Maryland Supreme Court explained that this encompasses conversations in which the participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Massachusetts Recording Laws

Massachusetts is an all-party consent state.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 272 Section 99 prohibits willfully committing an interception of any wire or oral communication. This carries up to 2.5 years of imprisonment in a jail or house of correction, or up to five years of imprisonment in state prison. (The statute also provides for civil damages.) However, the statute defines “interception” to exclude recording by a person who is given prior authority by all parties to the communication.

Michigan Recording Laws

Michigan is technically an all-party consent state, but courts have found that participants in a conversation are not subject to the main eavesdropping law.

Michigan Compiled Laws Section 750.539c prohibits willfully using any device to eavesdrop on a private conversation without the consent of all parties to it. This is a felony that carries up to two years of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 750.539h provides for civil damages.) However, Section 750.539a defines “eavesdropping” as recording any part of the private discourse of others. This led the Michigan Court of Appeals to rule in Sullivan v. Gray that a party to a phone conversation may record the conversation without the consent of all other participants. The Court found that the “of others” language in the definition of “eavesdropping” means that a potential eavesdropper must be a third party not otherwise involved in the conversation. The Michigan Supreme Court has not addressed this issue.

Section 750.539d separately prohibits using a device in a private place to record the sounds or events in that place without the consent of the person or people entitled to privacy there. This is also a felony that carries up to two years of imprisonment. A "private place" is defined as a place where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance, but not a place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access.

Minnesota Recording Laws

Minnesota is a one-party consent state.

Minnesota Statutes Section 626A.02 prohibits intentionally intercepting any wire, electronic, or oral communication. This generally carries up to five years of imprisonment, although penalties may be reduced in some circumstances. (Meanwhile, Section 626A.13 provides for civil damages.) However, the statute provides that it is not unlawful for a person to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication if the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of federal law or the law of any state.

Mississippi Recording Laws

Mississippi is a one-party consent state.

Mississippi Code Section 41-29-531 provides that laws involving the interception of wire or oral communications do not apply to a person who intercepts a wire, oral, or other communication if the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of federal or Mississippi law, or any other injurious act. Otherwise, any person who knowingly and intentionally operates a device in violation of these laws is guilty of a misdemeanor that carries up to one year in jail. (Meanwhile, Section 41-29-529 provides for civil damages.)

Missouri Recording Laws

Missouri is a one-party consent state for phone calls, while taking an unusual approach to in-person conversations.

Missouri Revised Statutes Section 542.402 prohibits knowingly intercepting any wire communication. This is a class E felony, which carries up to four years of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 542.418 provides for civil damages.) However, there is an exception for a person intercepting a wire communication when the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act.

The statute also prohibits knowingly using a device to intercept an oral communication when the device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of the communication. There is no explicit exception to this provision similar to the one-party consent exception for wire communications.

Montana Recording Laws

Montana is an all-party “knowledge” state but does not refer to “consent.”

Montana Code Section 45-8-213 prohibits knowingly or purposely recording a conversation by using a hidden electronic or mechanical device that reproduces a human conversation without the knowledge of all parties to the conversation. Purposely intercepting an electronic communication is similarly prohibited. However, neither prohibition applies to people given “warning” of the recording or interception. A violation carries up to six months in jail.

Nebraska Recording Laws

Nebraska is a one-party consent state.

Nebraska Revised Statutes Section 86-290 prohibits intentionally intercepting any wire, electronic, or oral communication. This is generally a Class IV felony, which carries up to two years of imprisonment, although penalties are reduced in some circumstances. (Meanwhile, Section 86-297 provides for civil damages.) However, it is not unlawful for a person to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication when the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of federal law or the law of any state.

Nevada Recording Laws

Nevada is a one-party consent state for in-person conversations, while phone calls (and text messages) require all-party consent.

Nevada Revised Statutes Section 200.620 prohibits intercepting any wire communication (interpreted to include phone calls and text messages) unless the interception is made with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication, and there is an emergency situation in which it is impractical to obtain a court order before the interception. (In Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that this applies even to recording one’s own telephone conversations.) In addition, Section 200.650 prohibits intruding on the privacy of other people by surreptitiously recording any private conversation unless authorized to do so by one of the people engaging in the conversation. A violation of either statute is a category D felony, which carries 1-4 years of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 200.690 provides for civil damages.)

New Hampshire Recording Laws

New Hampshire is an all-party consent state.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Section 570-A:2 broadly prohibits willfully intercepting any telecommunication or oral communication without the consent of all parties to the communication. In State v. Locke, the New Hampshire Supreme Court suggested that consent is valid when the surrounding circumstances demonstrate that the parties know that the conversation is being recorded. A violation of the statute is generally a class B felony, but it is a misdemeanor if the person is a party to the communication or has the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication. A class B felony carries a minimum term of up to 3.5 years in prison, while a misdemeanor may not lead to any jail time. (Meanwhile, Section 570-A:11 provides for civil damages.)

New Jersey Recording Laws

New Jersey is a one-party consent state.

New Jersey Revised Statutes Section 2A:156A-3 prohibits purposely intercepting any wire, electronic, or oral communication. This is a third-degree crime, which carries 3-5 years of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 2A:156A-24 provides for civil damages.) However, Section 2A:156A-4 provides an exception when the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted or used for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of federal or New Jersey law, or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.

New Mexico Recording Laws

New Mexico is a one-party consent state for (at least landline) phone calls but does not address consent for recording in-person conversations.

New Mexico Statutes Section 30-12-1 prohibits reading, interrupting, taking, or copying any message, communication, or report intended for someone else by telegraph or telephone without the consent of a sender or intended recipient. This is a misdemeanor, which carries less than one year in jail. (Meanwhile, Section 30-12-11 provides for civil damages.) In State v. Hogervorst, the New Mexico Court of Appeals observed that the statute does not apply to face-to-face conversations. The wording of the statute suggests that it also may not apply to cell phone conversations, but this is not fully clear.

New York Recording Laws

New York is a one-party consent state.

New York Penal Law Section 250.05 prohibits unlawfully engaging in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing an electronic communication. This is a class E felony, which carries a minimum term of 1-1.33 years of imprisonment. However, Section 250.00 defines “wiretapping” and “intercepting or accessing an electronic communication” to exclude situations involving the consent of the sender or receiver. It defines “mechanical overhearing of a conversation” to exclude situations involving the consent of at least one party to the conversation.

North Carolina Recording Laws

North Carolina is a one-party consent state.

North Carolina General Statutes Section 15A-287 prohibits willfully intercepting any wire, oral, or electronic communication without the consent of at least one party to the communication. A violation is a Class H felony, which presumptively carries 5-20 months of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 15A-296 provides for civil damages.)

North Dakota Recording Laws

North Dakota is a one-party consent state.

North Dakota Century Code Section 12.1-15-02 prohibits intentionally intercepting any wire or oral communication by using any electronic, mechanical, or other device. This is a class C felony, which carries up to five years of imprisonment. However, there is an exception if the person was a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication had given prior consent to the interception, and the communication was not intercepted for the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm. The wording of the statute suggests that it may not apply to cell phone conversations, but this is not fully clear.

Ohio Recording Laws

Ohio is a one-party consent state.

Ohio Revised Code Section 2933.52 prohibits purposely intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication. This is a fourth-degree felony, which carries 6-18 months of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 2933.65 provides for civil damages.) However, there is an exception if the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, and the communication is not intercepted for the purpose of committing a crime or tortious act in violation of federal or Ohio law, or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.

Oklahoma Recording Laws

Oklahoma is a one-party consent state.

Oklahoma Statutes Section 13-176.3 prohibits willfully intercepting any wire, oral, or electronic communication. This is a felony that carries up to five years of imprisonment. However, Section 13-176.4 provides an exception when the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal act.

Oregon Recording Laws

Oregon is a one-party consent state for phone calls (and text messages) but an all-party consent state for in-person conversations.

Oregon Revised Statutes Section 165.540 prohibits obtaining any part of a telecommunication or radio communication (defined to include text messages) to which the person is not a participant unless consent is given by at least one participant. The statute also generally prohibits obtaining any part of a “conversation” unless all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained. A violation is a Class A misdemeanor, which carries up to 364 days of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 133.739 provides for civil damages based on a violation of a related statute.)

Pennsylvania Recording Laws

Pennsylvania is an all-party consent state.

18 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Section 5703 prohibits intentionally intercepting any wire, electronic, or oral communication. This is a third-degree felony, which carries up to seven years of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 5725 provides for civil damages.) However, Section 5704 provides an exception when all parties to the communication have given prior consent to the interception.

Rhode Island Recording Laws

Rhode Island is a one-party consent state.

Rhode Island General Laws Section 11-35-21 prohibits willfully intercepting any wire, electronic, or oral communication. This carries up to five years of imprisonment. However, the statute provides an exception when the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of federal law or the law of any state, or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act. (Meanwhile, Section 12-5.1-13 provides for civil damages based on a violation of a related statute.)

South Carolina Recording Laws

South Carolina is a one-party consent state.

South Carolina Code of Laws Section 17-30-20 prohibits intentionally intercepting any wire, oral, or electronic communication. This is generally a felony that carries up to five years of imprisonment, although penalties may be reduced in certain circumstances. (Meanwhile, Section 17-30-135 provides for civil damages.) However, Section 17-30-30 provides an exception when the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception.

South Dakota Recording Laws

South Dakota is a one-party consent state.

South Dakota Codified Laws Section 23A-35A-20 prohibits a person who is not a sender or receiver of a communication from intentionally recording a communication without the consent of either a sender or receiver. The statute also prohibits a person who is not present during a conversation or discussion from intentionally recording the conversation or discussion without the consent of a party to the conversation or discussion. Either violation is a Class 5 felony, which carries up to five years of imprisonment.

Tennessee Recording Laws

Tennessee is a one-party consent state.

Tennessee Code Section 39-13-601 prohibits intentionally intercepting any wire, oral, or electronic communication. This is a Class D felony, which carries 2-12 years of imprisonment. However, it is lawful to intercept a communication when the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of Tennessee law.

Section 39-13-604 separately prohibits intentionally recording a communication transmitted between two cellular phones, a cellular phone and a landline phone, or a cordless phone and a cellular phone without the consent of at least one party to the communication. This is a Class A misdemeanor, which carries up to 11 months and 29 days of imprisonment.

Texas Recording Laws

Texas is a one-party consent state.

Texas Penal Code Section 16.02 prohibits intentionally intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication. This is a second-degree felony, which carries 2-20 years of imprisonment. However, the statute provides an affirmative defense if the person is a party to the communication or 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. (Meanwhile, Civil Practice & Remedies Code Section 123.002 provides for a civil action based on intercepting a communication. Section 123.001 defines “interception” to exclude situations involving the consent of a party to the communication.)

Utah Recording Laws

Utah is a one-party consent state.

Utah Code Section 77-23a-4 prohibits intentionally or knowingly intercepting any wire, electronic, or oral communication. This is generally a third-degree felony, which carries up to five years of imprisonment, although penalties may be reduced in certain circumstances. (Meanwhile, Section 77-23a-11 provides for civil damages.) However, a person may intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication if they are a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of state or federal laws.

Vermont Recording Laws

Vermont does not have a clear rule for consent to recording.

Vermont has not specifically addressed this topic by statute. The Vermont Supreme Court has ruled in State v. Geraw that the Vermont Constitution prohibits secret recording of police interviews in the privacy of the home without a warrant. However, in State v. Brooks, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that warrantless electronic participant monitoring of face-to-face conversations when a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy does not violate the Vermont Constitution. (This case involved a conversation in a public parking lot.)

Virginia Recording Laws

Virginia is a one-party consent state.

Code of Virginia Section 19.2-62 prohibits intentionally intercepting any wire, electronic, or oral communication. This is a Class 6 felony, which carries imprisonment for 1-5 years, or up to 12 months in the discretion of the judge or jury. (Meanwhile, Section 19.2-69 provides for civil damages.) However, Section 19.2-62 provides that this is not an offense when the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception.

Washington Recording Laws

Washington is generally an all-party consent state.

Revised Code of Washington Section 9.73.030 prohibits intercepting or recording any private communication transmitted by phone or certain other devices without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication. It similarly prohibits intercepting or recording any private conversation without first obtaining the consent of all the people engaged in the conversation. However, certain communications or conversations may be recorded with the consent of one party, including those that occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour.

A violation of the statute is a gross misdemeanor, which carries up to 364 days of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 9.73.060 provides for civil damages.) Consent is considered obtained when one party has announced to all other parties engaged in the communication or conversation that it is about to be recorded or transmitted.

Washington, D.C. Recording Laws

Washington, D.C. is a one-party consent jurisdiction.

District of Columbia Code Section 23-542 prohibits willfully intercepting any wire or oral communication. This carries up to five years of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 23-554 provides for civil damages.) However, intercepting a wire or oral communication is not prohibited when the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of any federal, state, or D.C. law, or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.

West Virginia Recording Laws

West Virginia is a one-party consent state.

West Virginia Code Section 62-1D-3 prohibits intentionally intercepting any wire, oral, or electronic communication. A violation is a felony that carries up to five years of imprisonment. (Meanwhile, Section 62-1D-12 provides for civil damages.) However, a person may intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of federal or West Virginia law.

Wisconsin Recording Laws

Wisconsin is a one-party consent state.

Wisconsin Statutes Section 968.31 prohibits intentionally intercepting any wire, electronic, or oral communication. This is a Class H felony, which carries up to six years of imprisonment. (The statute also provides for civil damages.) However, there is an exception when the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of federal law or the law of any state, or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.

Wyoming Recording Laws

Wyoming is a one-party consent state.

Wyoming Statutes Section 7-3-702 prohibits intentionally intercepting any wire, oral, or electronic communication. A violation is generally a felony that carries up to five years of imprisonment, although penalties may be reduced in some circumstances. (Meanwhile, Section 7-3-710 provides for civil damages.) However, there is an exception when the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.