Oregon
Reporter's Recording Guide
Last updated October 2023
Summary
An individual who is a party to a telephone or electronic conversation, or who has the consent of one of the parties to the conversation, can lawfully record it or disclose its contents. Oregon previously required all parties of a public, in-person conversation to be “specifically informed” for individuals to record and/or disclose the contents of those communications. Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540. However, the Ninth Circuit struck this provision in July 2023 as an improper content-based restriction on speech that violated the First Amendment. Project Veritas v. Schmidt, 72 F. 4th 1043 (9th Cir. 2023). In so holding, the Ninth Circuit held that Oregon does not have a compelling interest “in protecting individuals’ conversational privacy” from recording in “places open to the public.” Id. at 1060.
CompareIn-person conversations
Oregon previously required all parties of a public, in-person conversation to be “specifically informed” for individuals to record and/or disclose the contents of those communications. Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540. However, the Ninth Circuit struck this provision in July 2023 as an improper content-based restriction on speech that violated the First Amendment. Project Veritas v. Schmidt, 72 F. 4th 1043 (9th Cir. 2023). In so holding, the Ninth Circuit held that Oregon does not have a compelling interest “in protecting individuals’ conversational privacy” from recording in “places open to the public.” Id. at 1060. As a result, recording public, in-person conversations in the state is now broadly permitted.
Even under the prior law, however, members of the public, including journalists, were permitted to use an unconcealed recording device to record statements in the following proceedings: 1) public or semipublic meetings, such as hearings before governmental or quasi-governmental bodies, trials, press conferences, public speeches, rallies and sporting or other events; 2) regularly scheduled classes or similar educational activities in public or private institutions; or 3) private meetings or conferences if all others involved knew or reasonably should have known that the recording was being made. Id.
CompareTelephone and electronic communications
The consent of at least one party to any telephone conversation is required to record it. Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540. And because the provision of the law dealing with wireless communications applies to the transmission of “writing, signs, signals, pictures and sounds of all kinds,” consent likewise is required to disclose the contents of text messages sent between wireless devices. Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 165.535.
CompareHidden cameras
It is a misdemeanor to photograph or record a person, without consent, “in a state of nudity” in a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in “a bathroom, dressing room, [or] locker room.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.700(1)(a), (2)(d). It is also a misdemeanor to photograph or record a person’s “intimate area” without consent, if the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning this part of the body and has not exposed it to public view. Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.700(1)(b), (2)(f). The law, however, does not criminalize the use of recording devices for other purposes in areas to which the public has access or there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., filming conversations on public streets or in a hotel lobby).
CompareCriminal penalties
Illegally recording an electronic conversation is a misdemeanor offense. Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540.
CompareCivil suits
Anyone whose telephone or electronic conversation has been recorded or disclosed in violation of the law can bring a civil suit to recover the greater of actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000, and can also recover punitive damages and attorney’s fees. Or. Rev. Stat. § 133.739.
CompareDisclosing recordings
Disclosing the contents of a conversation obtained through illegal recording is a misdemeanor. Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540.
If a journalist received an illegally recorded conversation and was not involved in the illegal conduct, the First Amendment likely protects the publication of such material, to the extent it is a matter of public concern and truthful. See Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001). For more information, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.
CompareRight to record government officials in public
A growing consensus of courts have recognized a constitutional right to record government officials engaged in their duties in a public place. This First Amendment right to record generally encompasses both video and audio recording. For more information on the right to record broadly, see this guide’s introductory chapter here.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which includes Oregon, has held that there is a First Amendment right to record matters of public interest in public places, which “includes the right to record law enforcement officers engaged in the exercise of their official duties in public places.” Askins v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018); see also Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995).
Compare