California Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits (2026)

You have a right to record police officers performing their duties in public in California, grounded in the First Amendment. Under Penal Code 148(g), recording an officer does not, by itself, constitute obstruction, reasonable suspicion for detention, or probable cause for arrest, as long as the officer is in a public place or you are somewhere you have a legal right to be.

Your Right to Record Police in California

California is one of the strongest states in the country when it comes to protecting your right to record law enforcement. Since January 1, 2016, Penal Code section 148(g) has said that recording police officers performing their duties is not, by itself, obstruction. The statute does not create the right to record; that right comes from the First Amendment, discussed below.

The law states: "The fact that a person takes a photograph or makes an audio or video recording of a public officer or peace officer, while the officer is in a public place or the person taking the photograph or making the recording is in a place he or she has the right to be, does not constitute, in and of itself, a violation of subdivision (a), nor does it constitute reasonable suspicion to detain the person or probable cause to arrest the person."

This means that if you are standing on a public sidewalk, in a park, or anywhere else you have a legal right to be, recording a police officer does not by itself violate the obstruction statute, and officers cannot treat the recording itself as grounds to detain or arrest you. They can still act on other grounds, such as actual interference with their duties.

How SB 411 Changed California Law

Before 2015, the right to record police in California existed as a matter of First Amendment caselaw, but it was not written into the state's penal code. Officers sometimes arrested bystanders who recorded encounters and charged them under Penal Code 148(a) for resisting, delaying, or obstructing an officer.

State Senator Ricardo Lara introduced Senate Bill 411 to close this gap. Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 411 on August 11, 2015, and it took effect on January 1, 2016. The bill amended two sections of the Penal Code:

• Penal Code 69(b): Recording an executive officer in a public place, or from a place where you have a right to be, does not by itself constitute a violation of the law against threatening or resisting an executive officer.
• Penal Code 148(g): Recording a peace officer in a public place, or from a place where you have a right to be, does not by itself violate the obstruction statute, and it does not by itself provide reasonable suspicion to detain or probable cause to arrest.

The bill received bipartisan support. Its passage reflected a growing national movement toward transparency in policing, driven in part by high-profile incidents where bystander video proved essential in holding officers accountable.

What Counts as "Interference" With Police

Your right to record is not unlimited. While PC 148(g) protects the act of recording, PC 148(a)(1) still makes it a misdemeanor to willfully resist, delay, or obstruct any public officer in the discharge of their duties.

The key distinction is between recording and interfering. Recording, by itself, is never interference. But certain actions taken while recording can cross the line:

Actions that are protected:

• Standing on a public sidewalk and filming from a reasonable distance
• Holding your phone up to record during a traffic stop where you are the driver or passenger
• Livestreaming a police encounter to social media
• Refusing to identify yourself solely because you are recording (California does not have a general stop-and-identify statute)
• Continuing to record after an officer asks you to stop (assuming no actual interference)

Actions that may constitute interference:

• Physically blocking an officer from reaching a suspect or making an arrest
• Entering a secured crime scene or restricted area to get a better angle
• Touching an officer or their equipment while recording
• Shouting or creating a disturbance that prevents officers from communicating with each other or with a suspect
• Moving so close that you obstruct the officer's ability to perform their duties

An officer may lawfully order you to step back or move to a different location for safety reasons. For example, an order to "step back 20 feet" during an active arrest is likely a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. However, an order to "stop recording" or "put your phone away" that has no safety justification is not a lawful order, and you are not required to comply with it.

Can Police Order You to Stop Recording?

The short answer is no. A police officer in California cannot order you to stop recording simply because they do not want to be filmed. Recording police in public is protected by the First Amendment, and PC 148(g) makes clear that recording alone is not obstruction.

However, officers can issue lawful orders related to your physical location and behavior. If you are recording from a spot that genuinely creates a safety hazard or interferes with an active operation, an officer can direct you to move. The distinction matters:

• Unlawful order: "Turn off your camera" or "Delete that video"
• Potentially lawful order: "Please move back to the sidewalk" or "Stand behind this line"

If an officer orders you to stop recording and you believe the order is unlawful, the safest course of action is to comply in the moment and challenge the order later through legal channels. Refusing a direct order from a police officer, even an arguably unlawful one, can escalate the situation and lead to charges under PC 148(a)(1) that you would then need to fight in court.

Can Police Seize Your Phone or Delete Recordings?

Police officers cannot lawfully seize your phone solely because you used it to record them. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the U.S. Supreme Court has applied this protection specifically to cell phones.

Riley v. California (2014)

In Riley v. California, the Supreme Court held unanimously that police must obtain a warrant before searching the contents of a cell phone seized during an arrest. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court that cell phones contain "the privacies of life" and that the search-incident-to-arrest exception does not justify warrantless phone searches.

This decision means that even if an officer lawfully arrests you, they cannot scroll through your photos, videos, or other data without a warrant. The phone itself may be temporarily secured to prevent destruction of evidence, but its contents remain off-limits until a judge issues a search warrant.

Deleting Your Recordings

An officer who deletes recordings from your phone has potentially committed multiple legal violations:

• Destruction of evidence if the recording is relevant to any legal proceeding
• Violation of your First Amendment rights by suppressing protected expression
• Violation of your Fourth Amendment rights by conducting a warrantless search
• Potential violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the federal civil rights statute, which allows lawsuits against government officials who violate constitutional rights

If an officer deletes your footage, you may be able to recover it through data recovery software or cloud backups. You should also document what happened as soon as possible and consider filing a complaint with the officer's department and consulting a civil rights attorney.

Recording Police During Traffic Stops

You have the right to record during a traffic stop in California, whether you are the driver or a passenger. This right applies to both audio and video recording.

Practical Tips for Recording During a Traffic Stop

• Keep your hands visible. If you plan to use your phone to record, tell the officer what you are doing before reaching for it. An officer who sees you reaching for an unseen object may perceive a threat.
• Use a dashboard mount or phone holder. Having your phone already mounted reduces the need to reach for it during the stop.
• You do not need the officer's permission. You may inform the officer that you are recording as a courtesy, but you are not legally required to ask for permission.
• Passengers can record too. Passengers have the same right to record as drivers, and they are often in a better position to hold a phone and capture the interaction.

Dashcam Recordings

Dashcam recordings of police encounters are legal in California. Under Vehicle Code Section 26708, dashcams are permitted as long as they do not obstruct the driver's view. They must be mounted in specific areas of the windshield, such as the lower corners or behind the rearview mirror.

One important note: California is a two-party consent state for audio recordings of confidential conversations under Penal Code 632. However, interactions with police officers performing their duties in public are generally not considered "confidential communications" because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. A police officer conducting a traffic stop on a public road is not having a private conversation.

California's Two-Party Consent Law and Recording Police

California's wiretapping statute, Penal Code 632, makes it illegal to record a "confidential communication" without the consent of all parties. This is sometimes called the "two-party consent" rule.

However, this law does not prevent you from recording police officers in the line of duty. Here is why:

Public places lack confidentiality. PC 632 defines a "confidential communication" as one where the parties reasonably expect their words to be confined to themselves. A police officer speaking to a civilian on a public street, at a traffic stop, or during an arrest has no reasonable expectation of privacy in those statements.

PC 148(g) covers audio as well as video. The statute says that making an "audio or video recording" of an officer is not, by itself, obstruction. It does not address PC 632, so it does not answer the consent question on its own; the confidentiality point above does.

The First Amendment provides additional protection. Federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit, recognize a First Amendment right to record police performing their duties in public, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner limits. Those decisions do not address PC 632, and none of them holds that the First Amendment overrides PC 632 for a conversation that is genuinely confidential. The protection for recording police under PC 632 comes from the statute's own terms: public police encounters are not confidential communications.

The bottom line: you can record both audio and video of police officers performing their duties in public without violating PC 632, because those interactions are not confidential communications.

Body Camera Laws for California Police Officers

California has two major laws governing police body cameras: Penal Code 832.18, which sets policies for how agencies manage body camera programs, and AB 748, which governs public access to body camera footage.

Penal Code 832.18: Body Camera Policies

Penal Code 832.18 requires every California law enforcement agency that uses body-worn cameras to establish written policies covering:

• Who downloads footage: Supervisors must take custody of cameras after use-of-force incidents, officer-involved shootings, or other serious events.
• Data security: Agencies must implement measures to prevent tampering, unauthorized duplication, and distribution of footage.
• Categorization and tagging: All footage must be classified by incident type at the time of download.
• Retention periods: PC 832.18 directs agencies to consider retention as a best practice, not a hard mandate. Nonevidentiary footage should be retained for a minimum of 60 days, and evidentiary footage, including use-of-force incidents, arrests, and complaints, should be retained for a minimum of two years.
• Access controls: Body camera footage is the property of the law enforcement agency. Officers are prohibited from accessing footage for personal use or uploading it to social media.
• Permanent access logs: Records of who accessed or deleted footage should be retained permanently.

AB 748: Public Access to Body Camera Footage

Assembly Bill 748, which took effect on July 1, 2019, requires law enforcement agencies to release body camera footage of "critical incidents" under the California Public Records Act.

A "critical incident" means:

• An incident where an officer discharged a firearm at a person
• An incident where an officer's use of force resulted in death or great bodily injury

Disclosure timelines under AB 748:

Agencies may redact footage to protect the privacy of individuals, such as blurring faces or distorting audio. However, redactions cannot prevent the viewer from fully comprehending the events depicted.

SB 1421: Disclosure of Officer Misconduct Records

Senate Bill 1421, effective January 1, 2019, opened police personnel records to public disclosure in three categories:

1. Use-of-force incidents where an officer discharged a firearm or caused great bodily injury
2. Sustained findings of sexual assault by an officer
3. Sustained findings of dishonesty related to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime

This law applies retroactively, meaning records from before January 1, 2019, are also subject to disclosure.

SB 691 (2026): Redacting Medical Care From Body Camera Footage

The most recent legislation, SB 691 (Chapter 416, Statutes of 2026, approved by the Governor on September 20, 2026), amends Penal Code 832.18. It requires every law enforcement agency that has a body-worn camera policy to update that policy, on or before July 1, 2027, to include a procedure for emergency service personnel to request, before any public release, the redaction of recordings of a patient undergoing a medical or psychological evaluation, procedure, or treatment by emergency service personnel.

Redaction may include blurring patient care and muting audio, and the agency must keep an unredacted copy of the recording consistent with its body-worn camera policies and procedures. SB 691 does not itself prohibit officers from recording medical care; it addresses redaction before footage is publicly released.

Recording Inside a Police Station

Your right to record inside a police station is more limited than your right to record on a public street. The key factor is whether you are in an area that is genuinely open to the public.

Public areas (lobby, waiting room): You likely have the right to record in parts of a police station that function as public spaces, such as the front lobby or a public-facing service counter. These areas are ones where you have a legal right to be, which triggers the protection of PC 148(g).

Restricted areas (booking rooms, holding cells, offices): You do not have an automatic right to record in restricted areas of a police station. These are not public places, and entering them without authorization could itself constitute a violation. Recording in jails and detention facilities is generally prohibited without prior approval.

Courtrooms: Recording inside California courtrooms is governed by California Rule of Court 1.150, which requires prior permission from the presiding judge. This is a separate legal framework from PC 148(g).

If you need to file a report at a police station and want to record the interaction, the safest approach is to inform the desk officer that you are recording for your own records. If you are told not to record, you may wish to comply in the moment and later consult an attorney about whether the restriction was lawful.

The Copwatch Movement in California

California has a deep history of civilian police monitoring that predates any modern statute. Understanding this history provides context for why the state's laws are among the most protective in the country.

The Black Panther Party (1966)

The practice of organized civilian police monitoring began in Oakland, California, in 1966, when the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense organized armed citizen patrols to monitor the behavior of officers in the Oakland Police Department. Members would follow police cars through predominantly Black neighborhoods and observe interactions from a distance, armed with law books and firearms (which were legal to carry openly under California law at the time).

Berkeley Copwatch (1990)

Berkeley Copwatch, founded in 1990, became the model for modern copwatch organizations. Volunteers patrolled the Telegraph Avenue area near UC Berkeley, documenting police interactions with students, homeless individuals, and activists. Unlike the Black Panthers, Berkeley Copwatch adopted a strict policy of nonviolence and non-interference with police activity.

The organization has been credited with creating some of the first systematic databases of police encounters and successfully using public records requests to challenge police practices. In 2013, Berkeley Copwatch received the James Madison Freedom of Information Award from the Society of Professional Journalists for using public records to block a Homeland Security grant for an armored military vehicle.

Oakland Copwatch

After the fatal shooting of Oscar Grant by a BART police officer on January 1, 2009 (an incident captured on bystander video that became a landmark moment in the recording rights movement), Berkeley Copwatch helped establish Oakland Copwatch. Volunteers conducted street patrols for five months following the shooting.

Modern Impact

The Copwatch model has spread to cities across California and the nation, including San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. These groups operate within the legal framework established by PC 148(g) and serve as practical examples of the right to record in action.

Federal Court Cases Supporting Your Right to Record

While California's statutory protections are among the strongest in the country, they are reinforced by federal court decisions that have established recording police as a First Amendment right.

Glik v. Cunniffe (1st Circuit, 2011)

In Glik v. Cunniffe, the First Circuit held that the First Amendment right to film police officers in public was clearly established, building on earlier rulings such as Fordyce v. City of Seattle (9th Cir. 1995) and Smith v. City of Cumming (11th Cir. 2000). Simon Glik was arrested in Boston for filming officers making an arrest in a public park. The court held that his allegations stated violations of clearly established First and Fourth Amendment rights, so the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity and his civil rights claims could proceed. Boston paid Glik $170,000 in a settlement.

Turner v. Driver (5th Circuit, 2017)

In Turner v. Driver, the Fifth Circuit held that recording police is a First Amendment right subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Phillip Turner was handcuffed and placed in a patrol car after filming a police station from a public sidewalk. The court ruled that officers had no probable cause to arrest him.

Fields v. City of Philadelphia (3rd Circuit, 2017)

In Fields v. City of Philadelphia, the Third Circuit noted that "every Circuit Court of Appeals to address this issue (First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh) has held that there is a First Amendment right to record police activity in public." The court held that this right applies to all citizens, regardless of whether they have a specific journalistic or expressive purpose for recording.

Fordyce v. City of Seattle (9th Circuit, 1995)

The controlling Ninth Circuit authority for California is Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), which recognized 'the right to film matters of public interest' as protected speech under the First Amendment. Because California falls within the Ninth Circuit, this decision is directly binding on federal district courts in the state.

Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (9th Circuit, 2018)

In Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018), the Ninth Circuit expressly held that the First Amendment 'protects the right to photograph and record matters of public interest' and 'includes the right to record law enforcement officers engaged in the exercise of their official duties in public places.' These two 9th Circuit rulings provide the strongest federal foundation for your right to record police in California.

The Second, Seventh, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have reached the same conclusion, so eight federal appeals courts now recognize that the First Amendment protects recording police in public. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the question, and the Sixth, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits have not recognized the right.

What to Do If Your Rights Are Violated

If a police officer arrests you, seizes your phone, or retaliates against you for recording, you have several options:

Immediate Steps

1. Do not resist physically. Even if the officer's actions are unlawful, physical resistance can lead to additional charges and physical harm.
2. State clearly that you are exercising your right to record and that, under PC 148(g), recording alone is not obstruction. This creates a record that you invoked your legal right.
3. Note the officer's name and badge number if visible.
4. Identify witnesses who saw the interaction.
5. As soon as possible, back up any recordings to cloud storage or a separate device.

Legal Remedies

• File an internal complaint with the officer's police department. California law requires agencies to accept and investigate complaints.
• File a complaint with the California Department of Justice if the department fails to act.
• Consult a civil rights attorney about a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. This federal law allows you to sue government officials who violate your constitutional rights while acting under color of law.
• Potential damages may include compensation for emotional distress, punitive damages, and attorney fees.

Explore California Recording Laws

California Recording Laws Overview | Audio Recording | Video Recording | Phone Calls | Workplace | Dashcam Laws | Public Recording | Security Cameras | Landlord-Tenant | Medical | Schools | Voyeurism

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Recording laws are subject to change, and you should consult with a qualified attorney for advice specific to your situation.

More California Recording Topics

• California Biometric Privacy Laws
• Surveillance Camera Laws

More California Laws

• California AI Meeting Recording Laws
• California Dashcam Laws
• California Data Privacy Laws
• California Deepfake Laws
• California Employee Monitoring Laws
• California GPS Tracking Laws
• California Police Bodycam Laws
• California Smart Glasses Recording Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I record police in California without telling them?

Yes. The First Amendment protects recording police officers performing their duties in public, and under California Penal Code 148(g), recording from a public place or from any location where you have a legal right to be is not by itself obstruction. You are not required to announce that you are recording or ask for the officer's permission. While California is a two-party consent state for confidential communications under PC 632, interactions with police officers performing their duties in public are not considered confidential communications because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.

What happens if a police officer tells me to stop recording?

An officer cannot lawfully order you to stop recording solely because they do not want to be filmed. Under PC 148(g), recording by itself is not obstruction and is not by itself grounds for detention or arrest. However, if an officer gives you a direct order, the safest approach is to comply in the moment and challenge it later through legal channels. Officers can issue lawful orders to move back for safety, but an order to stop recording that has no safety justification is not a lawful order.

Can police take my phone if I record them in California?

Officers may lawfully seize your phone without a warrant in some circumstances, such as incident to a lawful arrest or to prevent destruction of evidence. But the U.S. Supreme Court held in Riley v. California (2014) that cell phones are protected by the Fourth Amendment and require a warrant to search, even during a lawful arrest, so officers cannot search the photos and videos on your phone without one. If an officer unlawfully seizes your phone or destroys footage, you may have grounds for a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Can passengers record police during a traffic stop in California?

Yes. Passengers have the same right to record as drivers, and PC 148(g) applies to anyone who records, not just the driver. Passengers are often in a better position to record because they do not need to keep their hands on the wheel or manage vehicle documents. The right applies to both audio and video recording. If an officer asks a passenger to stop recording without a specific safety justification, that order is likely not lawful.

Can I request body camera footage from California police?

Yes. Under AB 748 (effective July 1, 2019), you can request body camera footage of critical incidents through the California Public Records Act. Critical incidents include officer-involved shootings and use-of-force incidents resulting in death or great bodily injury. Agencies may delay release for up to 45 days if it would substantially interfere with an active investigation, and longer only by showing continued interference, reassessing and notifying the requester every 30 days. Under SB 1421, you can also request records of officer misconduct, including use-of-force incidents, sexual assault findings, and dishonesty findings.