Summary

Alabama law sets criminal penalties for recording or disclosing private communication of others without the consent of at least one of the persons involved. The statute also bans secret observations while trespassing on private property, with or without recording.

Those divulging illegally obtained communications also face criminal penalties.

The state’s hidden camera law also has criminal penalties.

Alaska’s eavesdropping laws prohibit the use of any electronic devices to overhear or record private conversations without the consent of at least one party to the conversation. Further, the state criminalizes the disclosure of information obtained without such consent.

The state’s hidden camera law only applies to taking nude or partially nude pictures of subjects without their consent.

An individual not involved or present at a conversation must have the consent of at least one party in order to legally record an in-person, telephone or electronic communication.

Recording such conversations without consent is a felony under Arizona law. The state also allows for civil suits for violations of its eavesdropping laws.

Violations of the hidden camera law are also felonies.

An individual must have the consent of at least one party to a conversation in order to legally record either an in-person or phone conversation. Intercepting such conversations without consent, as well as possessing a recording, is a misdemeanor.

State law makes it a felony to use any camera to secretly view a person in a private area without consent.

In California, all parties to any confidential conversation must give their consent to be recorded. For calls occurring over cellular or cordless phones, all parties must consent before a person can record, regardless of confidentiality.

Both civil and criminal penalties are available to victims of illegal recordings.

Further, the state’s so-called “anti-paparazzi” legislation sets fines for, among other things, trespassing on private property with the intent of capturing photos. The state’s vehicle code similarly penalizes those who interfere with drivers of vehicles in pursuit of images or sound recordings.

An individual not involved or present at a conversation must have the consent of at least one party to record an in-person, telephone or electronic communication.

Intercepting in-person conversations without consent is a misdemeanor, although it only applies when the parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The state also explicitly makes an allowance for recording by news media in some situations.

Intercepting electronic communications without at least one party’s consent and disclosing information gained through such means are both felony crimes under the state’s wiretapping law.

Violations of the state’s hidden camera law are misdemeanors.

Connecticut requires at least one party’s consent to record an in-person conversation. For telephonic conversations, consent of all parties is required to avoid potential civil liability, though criminal penalties do not apply if at least one party has consented to the recording.

The state’s voyeurism law prohibits taking visual images of another person without that person’s consent or knowledge when there is an expectation of privacy.

Delaware’s wiretapping law requires at least one party’s consent to record both in-person conversations and electronic communications. However, there is some conflict in the laws. A more recently enacted state privacy law makes it illegal to intercept private conversations without the consent of all parties. Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1335(a)(4). At least one federal court has held that, even under the privacy law, an individual can record conversations to which he or she is a party, without obtaining consent from others. United States v. Vespe, 389 F. Supp. 1359 (1975). Both laws have criminal penalties, though, so it is advisable to follow the stricter privacy law.

Violations of the wiretapping law are felonies and may also be the basis of a civil lawsuit, while violations of the privacy law are generally misdemeanors.

Violations of the hidden camera provisions are felonies.

In the District of Columbia, an individual may record or disclose the contents of an in-person or phone conversation if he or she is a party to the communication or has received prior consent from one of the parties.

The District’s voyeurism law prohibits secretly taking images of people in private settings and distributing them without consent.

Both the recording and voyeurism laws have criminal penalties, and the recording law provides civil penalties.

All parties must consent to the recording or the disclosure of the contents of any in-person, telephone or electronic communication in Florida. Disclosing communications in violation of the state’s statute is prohibited.

The state’s video voyeurism law bans the secret recording of images of individuals in areas where they are undressing and have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Both criminal and civil penalties exist for violations of the recording law, while the video voyeurism law has criminal penalties.

An individual may record or disclose the contents of an in-person, telephone or electronic communication if he or she is a party to the communication or has received prior consent from one of the parties.

The state also prohibits the use of cameras to observe private activities without the consent of all parties involved, and also prohibits disclosure of the contents of illegally obtained video recordings or images.

Violators of these rules can face criminal penalties and/or civil lawsuits.

Under the state’s eavesdropping law, an individual may record or disclose the contents of an oral, telephone or electronic communication if he or she is a party to the communication or has received prior consent from one of the parties.

However, the state’s privacy law prohibits the recording of sounds or images in private places without all parties’ consent, with greater penalties if a person in the image is in any stage of undress.

The state provides both civil and criminal penalties for violators.

An individual may record or disclose the contents of an in-person, telephone or electronic communication if he or she is a party to the communication or has received prior consent from one of the parties.

The state provides both civil and criminal penalties for violators.

In Illinois, an eavesdropping device cannot be used to record or overhear a private conversation or intercept, retain or transcribe a telephone or electronic communication made with the reasonable expectation of privacy without the consent of all parties involved.

The state provides both criminal and civil penalties for violators.

Indiana bars the recording or interception of any telephonic or electronic communication without the consent of at least one party to the conversation. It is not clear whether a journalist also needs at least one party’s consent before recording in-person conversations.

The state also prohibits disclosure of images intercepted in violation of its video voyeurism law.

Violators can face both civil and criminal penalties.

Iowa has two laws dealing with the interception of in-person, telephonic or electronic communications. Both laws permit the recording of those conversations by a party or by a non-party with the consent of at least one party.

The state prohibits disclosure of the illegally intercepted contents of such communications.

Violators can face both civil and criminal penalties.

Kansas bars the recording, interception, use or disclosure of any private conversation without the consent of at least one party to the conversation.

The state also prohibits the recording and disclosure of images captured illegally with a hidden camera.

Violators can face both civil and criminal penalties.

Kentucky bars the recording, interception, use or disclosure of any oral or telephonic communication without the consent of at least one party to the conversation.

The state also prohibits the recording and disclosure of images intercepted in violation of its voyeurism law.

Violators can face criminal penalties.

Louisiana’s Electronic Surveillance Act bars the recording, interception, use or disclosure of any in-person, telephone or electronic communication without the consent of at least one party to the conversation.

The state also prohibits the recording and disclosure of images taken in violation of its video voyeurism laws.

Violators can face both civil and criminal penalties.

Maine bars the recording, interception, use or disclosure of any in-person or telephonic conversation without the consent of at least one party to the conversation. However, the state requires the consent of all parties to record conversations occurring in places like dressing rooms and bathrooms.

The state also prohibits the recording and disclosure of images or audio intercepted in violation of its privacy laws.

Violators can face both civil and criminal penalties.

Under Maryland’s Wiretap Act, it is unlawful to record any private in-person conversation or any telephone or electronic communication unless you are a party to the conversation and have the permission of all the other parties. Additionally, recording with criminal or tortious purpose is illegal, regardless of consent.

The state also prohibits the recording and disclosure of images intercepted in violation of its privacy laws.

Violators can face both civil and criminal penalties.

Massachusetts prohibits the recording, interception, use or disclosure of any conversation, whether in person or over the telephone, without the permission of all the parties.

The state also prohibits the recording and disclosure of images intercepted in violation of its hidden camera laws.

Violators can face both civil and criminal penalties.

Michigan prohibits the recording and disclosure of any private conversations, whether in person or over the phone, without the consent of all parties, by someone who is not a party to the conversation. Courts disagree whether participants to the conversation may record without permission of the other parties.

The state also prohibits the recording and disclosure of images made in violation of its hidden camera laws.

Violators can face both civil and criminal penalties.

Minnesota bars the recording, interception, use or disclosure of any in-person, telephonic or electronic communication without the consent of at least one party to the conversation.

The state also prohibits the recording and disclosure of images intercepted in violation of its hidden camera laws.

Violators can face both civil and criminal penalties.

Mississippi bars the recording, interception, use or disclosure of any in-person, telephonic or other communication without the consent of at least one party to the conversation.

The state also prohibits the recording and disclosure of images made in violation of its hidden camera laws.

Violators can face both civil and criminal penalties.

Recordings of in-person conversations generally require the consent of all parties when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. An individual who is a party to a telephone conversation — or who has the consent of one of the parties to the communication — can lawfully record it or disclose its contents, unless the person is doing so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.

The state also prohibits the recording and disclosure of images recorded in violation of its hidden camera laws.

Violators can face criminal penalties under each of these laws, as well as civil penalties for the illegal recording of telephone conversations.

It is a violation of the state’s “privacy in communications” law to record either an in-person or telephone conversation or electronic communication without the consent of all parties, except under certain circumstances.

The state also prohibits recordings in violation of its hidden camera law.

Violators of both laws are subject to criminal penalties.

An individual who is a party to an in-person or telephone conversation or an electronic communication, or who has the consent of one of the parties to the conversation, can lawfully record it or disclose its contents, unless the person is doing so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.

The state also prohibits recordings in violation of its hidden camera law.

Violators of Nebraska’s recording law and the hidden camera law are subject to criminal penalties, with civil penalties possible as well for violations of the recording law.

An individual who has the consent of at least one party to an in-person conversation can lawfully record it or disclose its contents, but the consent of all parties is required to record or disclose the existence or contents of a telephone conversation.

The state also prohibits visual recordings in violation of its hidden camera law.

Violators of the recording law are subject to both criminal and civil penalties, while the hidden camera law has criminal penalties.

It is unlawful to record either an in-person or telephone conversation or disclose its contents without the consent of all parties. The violation goes from a felony to a misdemeanor offense, however, if the violator was a party to the communication or had one party’s prior consent to record it.

The state also prohibits the recording and disclosure of images or sound intercepted in violation of its hidden camera laws.

Both laws have criminal penalties, and violators of the recording law may be subject to civil lawsuits as well.

An individual who is a party to or has the consent of at least one of the parties to a private in-person conversation or a telephone or electronic communication can lawfully record that conversation or disclose its contents, unless the person is doing so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.

New Jersey also prohibits images made or disclosed in violation of its hidden camera law.

Violators of the recording laws may be subject to both criminal and civil penalties, while the hidden camera law has criminal penalties.

Recording a landline telephone call without the consent of at least one of the parties to the conversation is an unlawful “interference with communications” under New Mexico law. N.M. Stat. § 30-12-1. Based on the definition of “communications,” consent is arguably not needed to record conversations over cellphones or other wireless devices, but New Mexico courts have not yet clarified this. Consent is not needed to record in-person conversations. Id.

An individual who is a party to either an in-person or telephone conversation or electronic communication, or who has the consent of one of the parties to the communication, can lawfully record it.

New York also prohibits images made or disclosed in violation of its hidden camera law.

Violators of both laws may be subject to criminal penalties.

An individual who has the consent of one of the parties to an in-person, telephone or electronic conversation can lawfully record it or disclose its contents. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287.

An individual who is a party to an in-person or landline telephone conversation, or who has the consent of one of the parties to the conversation, can lawfully record it and disclose its contents, unless the person is doing so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02. Based on the definition of “communications,” consent is arguably not needed to record conversations over cellphones or other wireless devices, but North Dakota courts have not yet clarified this.

An individual who is a party to an in-person, 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, unless the person is doing so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52.

An individual who is a party to an in-person, 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, unless the person is doing so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Okla. Stat. tit. 13, § 176.4.

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 (9^th 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.

It is unlawful to intentionally record or disclose the contents of a private in-person conversation or any telephone or electronic communication without the consent of all parties.

The state also prohibits images made or disclosed in violation of its hidden camera law.

Violators of the recording law are subject to both criminal and civil penalties, while the hidden camera law has criminal penalties.

An individual who is a party to an in-person, telephone or electronic conversation, or who has the consent of one of the parties to the conversation, can lawfully record and disclose it, unless the person is doing so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21. An in-person, telephone or electronic conversation may also be disclosed if its contents (defined as the identities of the parties or the existence, substance, or meaning of the conversation) have become common knowledge or public information. R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 11-35-21, 12-5.1-1.

An individual who is a party to an in-person, telephone, or electronic conversation, or who has the consent of one of the parties to the conversation, can lawfully record it. S.C. Code § 17-30-30.

An individual who is a party to an in-person, telephone or electronic conversation, or who has the consent of one of the parties to the conversation, can lawfully record it. S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35A-20.

An individual who is a party to an in-person, telephone or electronic conversation, or who has the consent of one of the parties to the conversation, can lawfully record it, unless the person is doing so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-601.

An individual who is a party to an in-person, telephone or electronic conversation, or who has the consent of one of the parties to the conversation, can lawfully record it, unless the person is doing so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 16.02.

An individual who is a party to an in-person, telephone or electronic conversation, or who has the consent of one of the parties to the conversation, can lawfully record it, unless the person is doing so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Utah Code Ann. § 77-23a-4.

There are no specific laws in Vermont addressing the recording of in-person, telephone or electronic conversations. However, under federal law, an individual who is a party to an in-person, telephone or electronic conversation, or who has the consent of one of the parties to the conversation, can lawfully record it, unless the person is doing so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. 18 U.S.C. § 2511.

An individual who is a party to an in-person, 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. Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-62.

All parties to an in-person, telephone or electronic conversation generally must consent to its recording. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9.73.030. Consent is considered obtained when one party makes a reasonably effective recorded announcement to all other parties in the conversation that it is about to be recorded. Id. Journalists are generally deemed to have consent to record and disclose in-person, telephone or electronic conversations “if the consent is expressly given or if the recording or transmitting device is readily apparent or obvious to the speakers.” Id.

An individual who is a party to an in-person, 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, unless the person is doing so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3.

An individual who is a party to an in-person, 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, unless the person is doing so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Wis. Stat. Ann. § 968.31.

An individual who is a party to an in-person, 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, unless the person is doing so for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-3-702.