Massachusetts
Massachusetts Phone Call Recording Laws
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Massachusetts is an all-party consent state under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99. Every party on a phone call must know recording is taking place. Secretly recording any call is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine.
Massachusetts treats secret phone call recording as a serious crime. Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99, anyone who secretly records a phone call faces felony charges punishable by up to 5 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine. Massachusetts provides no reduced penalty tier for the core interception offense itself. Secretly recording the call is always a felony, though related offenses like disclosure and possession-with-intent carry a lesser house-of-correction penalty.
This guide explains exactly how the Massachusetts wiretap statute applies to phone call recording in 2026, what you must do before recording any call, and the severe consequences for getting it wrong.
What Massachusetts Law Says About Recording Phone Calls
The Core Statute: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99
The Massachusetts wiretap statute is found in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99. Originally enacted in 1968 to combat organized crime, the law has been broadly interpreted by courts to cover all forms of wire and oral communication, including everyday phone calls.
Section 99 B.4 defines "interception" as secretly hearing or secretly recording any wire or oral communication without prior authority or consent of all parties. The key word is "secretly." The statute does not require affirmative consent from every party. Instead, it requires that every party be aware the recording is happening.
This means the statute is violated whenever someone records a phone call without the knowledge of everyone on the line, regardless of the recorder's intentions or reasons.
What "Secret" Means Under Massachusetts Law
Massachusetts courts have consistently interpreted the statute to focus on whether the recording was hidden from any party. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has held that the statute targets the clandestine nature of the recording rather than the absence of formal permission.
In practical terms, this means:
- If you announce "I am recording this call" and the other person stays on the line, the recording is legal even if the other person objects
- If you start a recording app on your phone without saying anything, the recording is illegal even if you had good intentions
- If a business plays "this call may be recorded," that announcement satisfies the statute because all parties are on notice
The distinction between awareness and consent is critical. You do not need to get a "yes" from the other party. You need to make sure the other party knows recording is occurring.
Types of Phone Calls Covered
Section 99 covers all "wire communications," which the statute defines as any communication made in whole or in part through wire, cable, or a similar connection. This includes:
- Landline telephone calls through traditional phone networks
- Cell phone calls on any cellular network
- VoIP and internet calls through platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Skype, and WhatsApp
- Video calls with audio on any platform, including FaceTime
- Conference calls with multiple participants
- Voicemail messages when intercepted during transmission
The statute does not distinguish between personal and business calls. The same felony penalties apply regardless of the purpose of the call.
Can You Record Phone Calls in Massachusetts?
Yes, but only if all parties know the call is being recorded. You must disclose that recording is taking place before capturing any conversation. There is no exception for recording your own calls. Even though you are a participant in the conversation, secretly recording it is a felony.
How to Legally Record a Phone Call in Massachusetts
To record a phone call legally in Massachusetts, follow these steps:
- Announce the recording at the very beginning of the call before any substantive conversation
- Be explicit with language such as "I am recording this call" or "This call is being recorded"
- Wait for acknowledgment or at minimum give the other party a chance to disconnect
- Do not begin recording before the announcement since even a few seconds of secret recording can trigger the statute
If the other party objects, they have the right to hang up. If they stay on the line after hearing your disclosure, the recording is lawful.
What You Cannot Do
The following actions are felonies under Massachusetts law:
- Secretly activating a call recording app without telling the other party
- Recording a phone call between two other people without authorization from all parties
- Using a listening device to capture someone else's phone conversations
Each of these carries up to 5 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine. There is no lesser charge available for secretly recording the call itself, and Massachusetts prosecutors do not have the option of reducing that charge to a misdemeanor.
Disclosing the contents of an illegally recorded phone call is a separate, lesser offense under Section 99(C)(3). It is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 2 years in a house of correction and a $5,000 fine, not a felony.
Possessing recording equipment with the intent to secretly record phone calls is a separate, lesser offense under Section 99(C)(5). It is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 2 years in a house of correction and a $5,000 fine, not a felony.
Interstate Phone Call Recording
Which Law Applies to Cross-State Calls?
No statute or controlling court decision sets one rule for which state's law governs a call between Massachusetts and another state, and Section 99 does not say how it applies to someone recording from outside Massachusetts. The safe course is to follow the stricter state's rule, which for a call involving Massachusetts means disclosing the recording.
If you are in Massachusetts and call someone in a one-party consent state like Texas or New York, Massachusetts law still applies to your end of the call. You must disclose that you are recording. The recording consent checker can show Massachusetts' rule next to the other state's before you place the call.
If someone in a one-party consent state calls you in Massachusetts and secretly records the call, they may face liability under Massachusetts law if the recording is discovered.
Federal Law Baseline
Federal wiretapping law under 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 requires only one-party consent. However, Massachusetts law is significantly stricter than the federal baseline, and state law takes precedence within Massachusetts. A recording made in Massachusetts that complies with federal law but violates Section 99 is still illegal under state law.
Two-Party Consent States
When calling someone in another two-party consent state, assume both states' rules may apply and disclose the recording. The following states also require all-party knowledge or consent:
| State | Key Statute |
|---|---|
| California | Penal Code 632 |
| Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. 934.03 |
| Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 |
| Maryland | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402 |
| Montana | Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213 |
| New Hampshire | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 570-A:2 |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa.C.S. 5703 |
| Washington | Wash. Rev. Code 9.73.030 |
| Nevada | Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620 (phone calls) |
| Oregon | Or. Rev. Stat. 165.540 (in-person and video calls) |
| Delaware | 11 Del. C. 1335 and 2402 (conflicting) |
Four of these states require every party's consent only for some conversations. Connecticut's all-party rule under 52-570d applies to telephone calls and is enforced through a civil cause of action; its criminal eavesdropping law reaches only non-participants. Nevada requires all-party consent for phone calls (Lane v. Allstate, 1998) but not for in-person conversations. Oregon is one-party for phone calls but requires that every participant be specifically informed before an in-person conversation or video call is recorded. Delaware has two conflicting statutes, one all-party and one one-party, and no controlling court decision resolves them.
Massachusetts treats the core secret-interception offense as a felony with no misdemeanor alternative, and it has no participant exception. It is not alone in the felony grading: Maryland and Pennsylvania also make illegal interception a felony, and California's first-offense penalty can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. Massachusetts itself treats disclosure and possession-with-intent as lesser, house-of-correction-only offenses.
Business Phone Call Recording in Massachusetts
Employer Recording Requirements
Massachusetts businesses that record customer or client phone calls must provide clear, advance notice. The standard practice is to play a recorded announcement before any conversation begins, such as "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes."
Businesses must ensure:
- The announcement plays before any substantive conversation starts
- All employees who handle recorded calls are trained on proper disclosure procedures
- Recording policies are documented in employee handbooks and customer-facing materials
- Callers have the option to decline recording (typically by disconnecting)
What Happens When Businesses Fail to Disclose
A business that records customer calls without disclosure faces the same felony penalties as an individual. Additionally, the business may face:
- Civil lawsuits from recorded parties under Section 99 Q
- Liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation, or $1,000 minimum
- Class action liability if recording practices affect many customers
- Attorney fees and litigation costs paid to the plaintiff
Several Massachusetts businesses have faced significant litigation after employees recorded calls without following proper disclosure procedures. The risk is particularly high for call centers, insurance companies, and financial services firms.
Employee Phone Call Monitoring
Under Massachusetts law regarding employee privacy, employers who monitor employee phone calls must inform employees that monitoring occurs. Secret monitoring of employee calls violates Section 99 just as any other secret recording would. Employers should:
- Include monitoring disclosures in employment agreements
- Post visible notices near monitored workstations
- Limit monitoring to business-related calls when possible
- Never monitor personal calls without explicit disclosure
Penalties for Illegally Recording Phone Calls
Criminal Penalties
Massachusetts imposes some of the harshest criminal penalties in the country for illegal phone call recording:
| Offense | Maximum Prison Term | Maximum Fine | Classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Secret interception of a phone call | 5 years (state prison) | $10,000 | Felony |
| Possession of device with intent to secretly intercept | 2 years (house of correction) | $5,000 | Misdemeanor |
| Disclosure of illegally intercepted call | 2 years (house of correction) | $5,000 | Criminal offense |
| Using contents of illegally intercepted call | 2 years (house of correction) | $5,000 | Criminal offense |
The core interception offense carries no misdemeanor option: a first offense for secretly recording a single phone call is a felony carrying up to 5 years in state prison. This makes Massachusetts one of the strictest states in the country for phone call recording violations, even though related offenses like disclosure, use, and possession-with-intent carry a lesser house-of-correction penalty.
Civil Liability
Under Section 99 Q of the Massachusetts wiretap statute, victims of illegal phone call recording can file a civil lawsuit and recover:
- Liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation, or $1,000 minimum, whichever is greater
- Actual damages if they exceed the liquidated amount
- Reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs
- Punitive damages in cases of willful or egregious violations
The per-day calculation means that ongoing or repeated secret recording can result in substantial financial exposure. An employer who secretly records employee phone calls for months could face damages in the tens of thousands of dollars per affected employee.
Inadmissibility of Illegally Recorded Calls
In a Massachusetts criminal trial, the defendant can move under Section 99(P) to suppress an unlawfully intercepted call and any evidence derived from it.
In civil cases the statute has no comparable rule. A Superior Court judge relied on that in an employment case, Simpson v. Boston Public Health Commission, to allow a secret recording into evidence, but a trial-court ruling does not bind other courts. Making the recording is still a felony, and using or disclosing a recording you know was illegally made is itself a crime under Section 99(C)(3).
Using Recorded Phone Calls as Evidence
Admissibility Requirements
Phone call recordings made in compliance with Massachusetts law are generally admissible in court. To introduce a recording as evidence, you must establish:
- Legality: The recording was made with the knowledge of all parties
- Authentication: The recording is genuine, unaltered, and accurately represents the conversation
- Relevance: The recording relates to the issues in the case
- Chain of custody: The recording has been properly stored and handled
- Foundation testimony: A witness can identify the voices on the recording
Best Practices for Evidence Preservation
If you plan to use a recorded phone call as evidence:
- Keep the original file completely unedited
- Note the date, time, duration, and participants immediately after the call
- Store the original in a secure location with backup copies
- Do not share the recording unnecessarily before presenting it in court
- Consult an attorney about proper procedures for introducing recordings
AI Transcription and Phone Call Recording
AI-powered transcription tools like Otter.ai, Fireflies.ai, and built-in features in Zoom and Microsoft Teams are increasingly common. In Massachusetts, these tools trigger the same legal requirements as any other recording method.
Before activating any AI transcription or recording feature on a phone call, you must inform all parties. Many AI tools join calls as a visible "bot" participant, but the presence of a bot does not substitute for explicit disclosure. You must still announce that the call is being recorded or transcribed.
Employers who deploy AI call transcription for sales teams, customer support, or internal meetings must build disclosure procedures into their workflow. The felony penalties under Section 99 apply regardless of whether the recording is made by a human pressing a button or an AI tool activated automatically.
Pending Legislation: Senate Bill S.1215
Senator Patrick O'Connor introduced Senate Bill S.1215 in the 194th General Court (2025-2026 session). This bill would exempt a person who records threats, harassment, or other crimes made to them, but only in connection with a divorce or child custody matter or an abuse or harassment prevention order under chapter 209A or 258E.
The bill was motivated by a 2022 case in which a woman with a restraining order secretly recorded her husband making threats over the phone. She was charged with eight counts of violating the wiretap statute, while her husband was simultaneously charged with domestic violence. The Judiciary Committee reported it favorably on October 9, 2025, and it has remained in Senate Ways and Means since; it has not become law.
If passed, this legislation would not change the general prohibition on secret phone call recording. It would only provide a defense in narrow circumstances involving recorded criminal threats or harassment.
Massachusetts Recording Laws by Topic
Phone Call Recording | Audio Recording | Video Recording | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras
Back to Massachusetts Recording Laws
More Massachusetts Recording Topics
More Massachusetts Laws
- Massachusetts AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Massachusetts Dashcam Laws
- Massachusetts Data Privacy Laws
- Massachusetts Deepfake Laws
- Massachusetts Employee Monitoring Laws
- Massachusetts GPS Tracking Laws
- Massachusetts Police Bodycam Laws
- Massachusetts Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to record a phone call in Massachusetts?
Yes, but only if all parties know the call is being recorded. Massachusetts law under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99 prohibits secret recording of phone calls. You must announce that you are recording before any conversation begins. Secretly recording a phone call is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine.
Can I record a phone call if the other person is in a one-party consent state?
If you are in Massachusetts, Massachusetts law applies to your end of the call. You must still disclose that you are recording, even if the other party is in a state that only requires one-party consent. Whether Massachusetts law also reaches a caller recording from a one-party state is not settled, so anyone calling into Massachusetts should disclose too.
What happens if I secretly record a phone call in Massachusetts?
You face felony charges carrying up to 5 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine. Massachusetts has no misdemeanor option for secretly recording the call itself, though disclosure and possession-with-intent are lesser, misdemeanor-level offenses. You may also face civil liability including liquidated damages of $100 per day or $1,000 minimum, plus attorney fees.
Do businesses need to tell callers they are recording?
Yes. Massachusetts businesses must provide clear notice before recording any phone call. The standard practice is a recorded announcement such as 'This call may be recorded.' Failure to provide notice exposes the business to the same felony penalties that apply to individuals, plus civil liability from recorded parties.
Can a secretly recorded phone call be used as evidence in Massachusetts?
In a criminal case, the defendant can move under Section 99(P) to suppress an illegally recorded call and evidence derived from it. Section 99 has no comparable rule for civil cases, and one Superior Court judge admitted a secret recording in an employment case, but that ruling does not bind other courts, and using or disclosing an illegal recording can itself be a crime. Making the recording is still a felony regardless of how the evidence is used.
Updates
Removed an unconfirmed date from three references to the Simpson v. Boston Public Health Commission Superior Court ruling.
We removed a statement that both states' laws apply to a call between two all-party states, since no statute or controlling decision settles which law governs.
We added Nevada, Oregon, and Delaware to the list of all-party consent states with their scope limits, corrected claims that Massachusetts is unique in treating secret recording as a felony and that the stricter state's law always governs interstate calls, and corrected the wire-communication definition, the scope and status of Senate Bill 1215, and the date and weight of the Simpson civil-evidence ruling.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the description of Oregon law: phone calls are one-party, while in-person conversations and video calls require that every participant be informed.
Scoped the 'no misdemeanor option' claim to the core secret-interception offense, corrected the disclosure/use penalty from 2.5 to 2 years, and added a note that Connecticut's, Oregon's, and Delaware's all-party rules are narrower or hybrid rather than flat peers of Massachusetts.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the penalty for possessing recording equipment with intent to intercept a phone call: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99(C)(5) makes this a misdemeanor (up to 2 years house of correction, $5,000 fine), not a felony carrying 5 years/$10,000 like the interception offense itself.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 272
§ 99Interception of wire and oral communicationsIn forcecited in 25 of our articles
Section 99. Interception of wire and oral communications.— A. Preamble. The general court finds that organized crime exists within the commonwealth and that the increasing activities of organized crime constitute a grave danger to the public welfare and safety. Organized crime, as it exists in the commonwealth today, consists of a continuing conspiracy among highly organized and disciplined groups to engage in supplying illegal goods and services. In supplying these goods and services organized crime commits unlawful acts and employs brutal and violent tactics. Organized crime is infiltrating legitimate business activities and depriving honest businessmen of the right to make a living. The general court further finds that because organized crime carries on its activities through layers of insulation and behind a wall of secrecy, government has been unsuccessful in curtailing and eliminating it. Normal investigative procedures are not effective in the investigation of illegal acts committed by organized crime.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 271 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Blood (1987) read Section 99 as generally proscribing secret recording of oral communications without all parties' consent, and suppressed under art. 14 a warrantless police recording made with one party's consent. Commonwealth v. Vitello (1975) held Section 99 substantially complies with federal Title III.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Vitello (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1975, 367 Mass. 224)✓In a gaming prosecution built on wiretapped phone calls, the SJC gave chapter 272 section 99 its first full review and held the state wiretap statute substantially complies with federal Title III and that the warrants issued under it met both standards.
- Commonwealth v. Blood (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1987, 400 Mass. 61)✓Police wired an informant who recorded conversations in private homes about a planned break-in; the SJC held the recordings fell within section 99's one-party-consent exception but that article 14 nonetheless required a warrant, and reversed the convictions.
- Commonwealth v. D'Amour (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1999, 428 Mass. 725)✓The SJC upheld a section 99 wiretap of a widow suspected of arranging her husband's murder for insurance money, holding the district attorney's written designation of an assistant satisfied Vitello and that probable cause supported the organized crime connection.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Recording Laws (2026): Two-Party Consent Rules, Massachusetts Audio Recording Laws, Massachusetts Dashcam Laws
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 52 (Civil Actions), Chapter 925
§ 52-570dAction for illegal recording of private telephonic communications.In forcecited in 56 of our articles
(a) No person shall use any instrument, device or equipment to record an oral private telephonic communication unless the use of such instrument, device or equipment (1) is preceded by consent of all parties to the communication and such prior consent either is obtained in writing or is part of, and obtained at the start of, the recording, or (2) is preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning and is part of the communication by the recording party, or (3) is accompanied by an automatic tone warning device which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at intervals of approximately fifteen seconds during the communication while such instrument, device or equipment is in use.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 22 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp. (1998) held section 52-570d creates a cause of action unknown at common law that is strictly construed, and does not reach a third party's rerecording of an already illegal tape. Jezouit v. Malloy (2019) held the statute does not waive the state's sovereign immunity from suit.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp. (Connecticut Appellate Court 1998, 47 Conn. App. 764)✓A girlfriend secretly taped a radio employee's call, and a coworker re-recorded that tape and used it to get him fired. The court held section 52-570d, strictly construed, bars taping a private call but not a third party's re-recording of an already illegal tape.
- Jezouit v. Malloy (Connecticut Appellate Court 2019, 193 Conn. App. 576)“…his complaint because (1) he brought his claim pursuant to General Statutes § 52-570d, which he contends waives sovereign imm…”
- State v. Skok (Supreme Court of Connecticut 2015)“…on without the consent of all parties to the communication. General Statutes § 52-570d (a) prohibits the use of ‘‘any instrume…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?, Can You Record ICE Agents? Know Your Rights by State (2026)
Florida Statutes
§ 934.03Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.In forcecited in 53 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who:(a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (b) Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when:1. Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 74 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Walls (1978) held that recording an in-home oral communication without the consent of all parties violated section 934.03 and required suppression, and State v. Inciarrano (1985) held the statute protects only communications uttered with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Walls (Supreme Court of Florida 1978, 356 So. 2d 294)✓An extortion victim secretly recorded threats made to him in his own home; the court held that was a protected oral communication, that recording it without every party's consent violated Section 934.03, and that Section 934.06 barred using the tape as evidence.
- SHARRON TASHA FORD v. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2021)“…ng oral communications in violation of the wiretap statute, section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2009), and for obstructing without vio…”
- State v. Calhoun (Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida 1984, 7 Fla. Supp. 2d 3)“…hall not be violated” . . . (emphasis mine) Furthermore, section 934.03, Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful for *6 any person (…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026), Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026)
Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720, Act 5 (Criminal Code of 2012)
§ 14-2Elements of the offense; affirmative defenseIn forcecited in 63 of our articles
(a) A person commits eavesdropping when he or she knowingly and intentionally: (1) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of overhearing, transmitting, or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all of the parties to the private conversation; (2) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of transmitting or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all other parties to the private conversation; (3) Intercepts, records, or transcribes, in a surreptitious manner, any private electronic communication to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all parties to the private electronic communication; (4) Manufactures, assembles, distributes, or possesses any electronic, mechanical, eavesdropping, or other device knowing that or having reason to know that the design of the device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious overhearing, transmitting, or recording of private conversations or the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 92 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Melongo (Illinois Supreme Court 2014, 2014 IL 114852)“…ations of section 14-2 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/14-2 (West 2008)), which defines the offense…”
- People v. Smith (Appellate Court of Illinois 2025, 2025 IL App (1st) 220116)“…ropping violated section 14-2 of the Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/14-2 (West 2014)) and that then State’s Att…”
- Cook Au Vin, LLC v. Mid-Century Insurance Co. (Appellate Court of Illinois 2023, 226 N.E.3d 694)“…onversation by one who is not a party to the conversation. 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(1) (West 2020). In enacting the stat…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Illinois Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Illinois Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Illinois Dashcam Laws: Audio Rules, Placement, and Legal Use (2026)
Montana Code Annotated, Title 45
§ 45-8-213Privacy In CommunicationsIn forcecited in 51 of our articles
45-8-213. Privacy in communications. (1) Except as provided in 69-6-104, a person commits the offense of violating privacy in communications if the person knowingly or purposely: (a) with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, or injure, communicates with a person by electronic communication and threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of the person or makes repeated use of obscene, lewd, or profane language or repeated lewd or lascivious suggestions; (b) uses an electronic communication to attempt to extort money or any other thing of value from a person or to disturb by repeated communications the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of a person at the place where the communications are received; (c) records or causes to be recorded a conversation by use of a hidden electronic or mechanical device that reproduces a human conversation without the knowledge of all parties to the conversation; (d) with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, or injure or to obtain money or other valuable consideration, publishes, distributes, or discloses real or digitally fabricated printed or electronic photographs, pictures, images, or…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mca.legmt.gov
Cited in 23 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Dugan (2013) struck the statute's prima facie intent clause as overbroad. State v. Brown (1988) noted the statute still bars recording without all participants' permission and rejected an overbreadth attack on its public-official exception. State v. DuBray (2003) found no violation where the defendant knew of the recording.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Smith (Montana Supreme Court 2004, 322 Mont. 206)✓A man who phoned threats to kill his estranged wife's boyfriend argued he should have been charged under section 45-8-213(1)(a) instead of assault with a weapon. The court held the two statutes punish different conduct, so the charge was within prosecutorial discretion.
- State v. Dugan (Montana Supreme Court 2013, 369 Mont. 39)“…rbroad, the Court today strikes the prima facie language in § 45-8-213, MCA. However, a narrow application would be…”
- In re C.S. (Montana Supreme Court 1984, 210 Mont. 144)“…n of privacy in communication, a misdemeanor as provided in Section 45-8-213, MCA. The facts underlying the offense were…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Montana Recording Laws (2026): Announcement Exception and Penalties, Montana Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Montana Dashcam Laws: Recording Rules, Audio Consent, and Windshield Mounting (2026)
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses)
§ 5703Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communicationsIn forcecited in 59 of our articles
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he: (1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication; (2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or (3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 121 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Brachbill (1989) held Section 5703(1) is not limited to interceptions made with an intercepting device, so an officer who listened on a telephone extension without the prior approval Section 5704(2)(ii) requires violated the section, and the testimony had to be suppressed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1987, 370 Pa. Super. 179)“…and other electronic interceptions of communications, see 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, carved out limited exceptions to these…”
- Commonwealth v. Bennett (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 1976, 245 Pa. Super. 457)“…ode, Act of Dec. 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1 et seq. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, as amended Dec. 27, 1974, P.L. 1007, N…”
- Commonwealth v. Brachbill (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1989, 520 Pa. 533)✓A state trooper listened on an extension phone to a call between a former inmate and a guard charged with abusing him; the court held section 5703 bars any willful interception, not only one using an intercepting device, so the trooper's testimony should have been suppressed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Oregon Phone Call Recording Laws: Split Consent Rules and Penalties, Pennsylvania Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Pennsylvania Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Felony Penalties (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can I Record My Boss Harassing Me? State-by-State Legal Guide (2026), How to Detect and Block Listening Devices in Your Home (2026), How to Record a Phone Call on Android or iOS Without an App (2026)
Sources and References
- Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99 - Wiretapping Statute(malegislature.gov).gov
- Massachusetts Law About Employee Privacy(mass.gov).gov
- Senate Bill S.1215 - Defense for Recording Threats (194th General Court)(malegislature.gov).gov
- Federal Wiretap Act - 18 U.S.C. Section 2511(law.cornell.edu)
- Massachusetts Jury Instructions: Wiretapping (February 2024)(mass.gov).gov
- Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 165, ORS 165.535 and 165.540 (Oregon State Legislature)(oregonlegislature.gov).gov