Massachusetts Laws on Recording Police

Massachusetts residents may openly or secretly record police officers performing duties in public. Building on Glik v. Cunniffe (2011), which recognized a First Amendment right to record police discharging their duties in public, the First Circuit held in Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins (2020) that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99 violates the First Amendment by prohibiting the secret, nonconsensual audio recording of police officers discharging their official duties in public spaces. Under First Circuit precedent, an officer may order you to stop recording police performing their duties in public only if the officer can reasonably conclude that the recording itself is interfering, or is about to interfere, with the officer's duties.

Massachusetts residents have a clear constitutional right to record police officers performing their duties in public. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit confirmed this right in Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020), ruling that the Massachusetts wiretap statute is unconstitutional when applied to secret recordings of police in public. This is a significant carve-out from a statute that otherwise makes secretly recording a conversation a felony.

This guide explains your right to record police in Massachusetts, the legal boundaries of that right, body camera rules, and how the wiretap statute applies to law enforcement surveillance.

The Right to Record Police in Massachusetts

Project Veritas v. Rollins (2020)

In December 2020, the First Circuit issued its landmark ruling in Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins. The case challenged the Massachusetts wiretap statute's prohibition on secret recording as it applied to recording government officials, including police officers, performing their duties in public.

The First Circuit held that:

• The First Amendment protects the right to secretly record police officers performing their duties in public spaces
• Applying Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99 to prohibit secret recording of police in public is unconstitutional
• The public has a strong interest in monitoring police conduct, and secret recording serves that interest
• Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court held that Section 99 is not narrowly tailored to further the government's interests in preventing interference with police activities and protecting individual privacy, even though those interests are important

Together with Glik v. Cunniffe (2011), which protects open recording of police in public, this ruling means that in Massachusetts, you can record police officers openly or secretly when they are performing official duties in a public place. You are not required to announce that you are recording.

What This Right Covers

The First Amendment right to record police in Massachusetts includes:

• Traffic stops: Recording officers during a traffic stop on a public road
• Arrests: Recording officers making arrests in public
• Protests and demonstrations: Recording police activity at public gatherings
• Street interactions: Recording officers engaging with the public on sidewalks and streets
• Public meetings: Recording police officers attending or speaking at public forums
• Accident scenes: Recording officers responding to incidents in public areas

The right applies to recording with any device, including smartphones, cameras, body-worn cameras, and wearable devices. You can use video, audio, or both.

What This Right Does Not Cover

The First Amendment right to record police has limits:

• Private settings: The ruling applies to police performing duties in public. Recording officers inside a private home during a search, for example, may involve different legal considerations.
• Interference with police duties: You cannot physically obstruct officers while recording. Recording from a reasonable distance is protected; getting in an officer's way is not.
• Restricted areas: Crime scenes, secure facilities, and areas where public access is lawfully restricted may limit your ability to record.
• Private conversations between officers: The ruling specifically addressed recording of official police conduct. Recording private, off-duty conversations between officers may still trigger Section 99.

Your Rights During a Police Encounter

What Officers Can and Cannot Do

Officers CANNOT:

• Order you to stop recording their public duties, unless the officer can reasonably conclude that the recording itself is interfering, or is about to interfere, with the officer's duties
• Seize your phone or recording device because you are recording
• Arrest you solely for recording police activity
• Delete recordings from your device
• Demand that you show them your recording or unlock your phone
• Retaliate against you for exercising your right to record

Officers CAN:

• Ask you to move to a safe location if you are in danger or obstructing their work
• Establish a reasonable perimeter around an active crime scene
• Hold your device while they seek a warrant if they have a lawful basis to seize it, but they generally need a warrant to search its contents (under Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014))

Practical Tips for Recording Police

If you choose to record police in Massachusetts:

1. Stay at a safe distance. You have the right to record, but you must not physically interfere with police operations.
2. Do not reach toward officers or make movements that could be perceived as threatening.
3. Keep your hands visible when possible, especially if an officer approaches you.
4. Stay calm and identify yourself if asked, but you are not required to explain why you are recording.
5. Do not resist if an officer unlawfully orders you to stop recording. Comply, note the officer's badge number, and file a complaint afterward.
6. Back up your recording to cloud storage as soon as possible. If your phone is seized, the cloud copy preserves the evidence.
7. Know your rights. If your recording is seized or deleted, contact the ACLU of Massachusetts or a civil rights attorney.

Filing a Complaint

If a police officer violates your right to record:

• File a complaint with the officer's department internal affairs division
• Contact the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office
• File a complaint with the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST), which oversees officer certification and discipline
• Consider filing a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violation of your First Amendment rights

Police Body Cameras in Massachusetts

Current State of Body Camera Deployment

Massachusetts does not have a statewide mandate requiring all police officers to wear body cameras. Body camera adoption varies by department:

• The Boston Police Department has expanded its body camera program significantly since 2016, with department-wide deployment progressing through 2024 and 2025
• The Massachusetts State Police have implemented body cameras for patrol units
• Many municipal departments have adopted body cameras independently, while others have not

The 2020 Police Reform Law and Body-Worn Camera Framework

In December 2020, Massachusetts enacted a comprehensive police reform law, St. 2020, ch. 253, which:

• Created the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission to certify and decertify officers
• Established standards for use of force
• Limited qualified immunity for officers
• Did not mandate body cameras statewide but encouraged adoption

Instead of mandating body cameras, the reform law directed the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, working with the Executive Office of Technology Services and Security, to establish a law enforcement body camera task force. The task force was charged with proposing regulations for a uniform code on the procurement and use of body-worn cameras and minimum requirements for storing and transferring their recordings.

Body Camera Footage Access

When departments do use body cameras, public access to the footage is governed by Massachusetts public records law. Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 66, Section 10, body camera footage is generally a public record, but several exemptions may limit access:

• Footage taken inside a private residence
• Footage that is part of an ongoing investigation
• Footage that identifies witnesses, victims, or confidential informants
• Footage depicting minors

Requests for body camera footage should be directed to the department that recorded it, citing the Massachusetts Public Records Law.

Police Wiretap Surveillance

Court Order Requirements Under Section 99

When law enforcement wants to conduct wiretap surveillance, they must follow strict procedures under Section 99 of the Massachusetts wiretap statute. The requirements include:

• Obtaining a warrant from a justice of the Superior Court
• Demonstrating probable cause that the target is committing or has committed a designated offense
• Showing that normal investigative procedures have failed or are reasonably unlikely to succeed
• Specifying the particular communications to be intercepted
• Limiting the duration of the interception (no more than 15 days of interception per warrant, within a warrant period of up to 30 days, with renewals available)

Commonwealth v. Du (2024)

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reinforced the warrant requirement in Commonwealth v. Du, 495 Mass. 103 (2024). In this case, officers used a cell phone to record video and audio during an undercover drug purchase without obtaining a wiretap warrant.

The court ruled that:

• The recording violated Section 99 because it was conducted without a proper court order
• Both the video and audio components of the recording had to be suppressed
• Even law enforcement officers must comply with Section 99's warrant requirements
• The "secret" element of the recording triggered the statute regardless of the law enforcement purpose

This ruling reinforced that Massachusetts takes its wiretap statute seriously even when applied to police investigations. Officers cannot bypass the warrant requirement simply because they believe recording is necessary for the investigation.

Commonwealth v. Grimaldi (2026): open recording is not "willful" interception

In Commonwealth v. Grimaldi, SJC-13842 (June 2, 2026), the SJC addressed the opposite scenario from Du: state troopers recorded a driver at a sobriety checkpoint using bodycams openly displayed at chest level, backed by a large roadside sign announcing audio-visual recording. The SJC held this was not a willful interception under Section 99, because willfulness requires an intent to record someone secretly, without their knowledge. Read together, Du and Grimaldi show that intent to record secretly, not the fact that law enforcement is doing the recording, drives the analysis: police must get a warrant to record secretly, but in Grimaldi openly displayed bodycams and a visible warning sign showed no intent to record secretly, so there was no willful interception.

Designated Offenses for Wiretap Warrants

Section 99 allows wiretap warrants only for listed "designated offenses" committed in connection with organized crime. The list includes:

• Murder, kidnapping, robbery, and mayhem
• Arson, burglary, larceny, embezzlement, and forgery
• Extortion, bribery, and illegal moneylending
• Possession or sale of narcotic or harmful drugs
• Gaming and prostitution
• Perjury, subornation of perjury, and intimidation of a witness or juror
• Assault and battery with a dangerous weapon

Police cannot obtain a wiretap warrant for an offense that is not on the list, or for a listed offense with no connection to organized crime.

Citizen Oversight and Accountability

The POST Commission

The Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission was established by the 2020 reform law to oversee police officer certification, training, and discipline. The commission has the power to:

• Certify and decertify police officers
• Investigate complaints of misconduct
• Establish training standards
• Maintain a public database of officer disciplinary records

Citizen recordings of police encounters can serve as evidence in POST Commission proceedings and are an important tool for police accountability.

The Role of Citizen Recording in Accountability

The First Circuit's Project Veritas ruling recognized that citizen recording of police serves a vital accountability function. The court noted that the ability to record police secretly is especially important because officers might alter their behavior when they know they are being recorded. Secret recording captures unguarded conduct that may reveal misconduct.

Massachusetts residents should understand that their recordings of police can:

• Serve as evidence in internal affairs investigations
• Support federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
• Be submitted to the POST Commission
• Help establish patterns of misconduct
• Protect both citizens and officers by providing an objective record of events

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

Commonwealth v. Grimaldi (2026): bodycams at a checkpoint

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided Commonwealth v. Grimaldi, SJC-13842 on June 2, 2026. State troopers used openly displayed, chest-mounted bodycams and a large, reflective roadside sign warning of audio-visual recording at a sobriety checkpoint. The SJC held that the troopers did not commit a willful interception under Section 99, because willfulness requires an intent to record someone without their knowledge, and reversed a lower-court order suppressing the footage. The open display of the cameras and the visible warning sign showed the troopers did not intend to record secretly, which defeated the willfulness element; the court did not decide whether the recording was secret under the statute. The holding rests on the facts of the case: the troopers committed no willful interception even though the defendant was never orally told he was being recorded.

More Massachusetts Recording Topics

• Massachusetts Biometric Privacy Laws
• Surveillance Camera Laws

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

Can I record police in Massachusetts?

Yes. The First Circuit recognized a First Amendment right to record police performing their duties in public in Glik v. Cunniffe (2011), and in Project Veritas v. Rollins (2020) it ruled that Section 99 violates the First Amendment by prohibiting the secret, nonconsensual audio recording of police officers discharging their official duties in public spaces. You can record openly or secretly. Under First Circuit precedent, an officer may order you to stop recording police performing their duties in public only if the officer can reasonably conclude that the recording itself is interfering, or is about to interfere, with the officer's duties.

Do I have to tell police I am recording them?

No. The First Circuit specifically ruled that secret recording of police in public is constitutionally protected. Unlike the general Massachusetts wiretap statute which requires all parties to know about recording, this exception means you do not need to disclose that you are recording police.

Can police seize my phone if I am recording them?

Not simply because you are recording. Under Riley v. California (2014), police generally need a warrant to search the contents of your phone, although they may hold the phone while they get one if they have a lawful basis to seize it. If an officer unlawfully seizes your device, file a complaint with internal affairs and contact a civil rights attorney.

Do Massachusetts police wear body cameras?

There is no statewide body camera mandate. Some departments, including Boston Police and Massachusetts State Police, have deployed body cameras. Adoption varies by department. The 2020 police reform law created oversight mechanisms but did not require universal body camera use.

Can police secretly record me without a warrant in Massachusetts?

Generally not. Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99, police need a warrant from a Superior Court justice to secretly record you, with narrow exceptions: an officer who is a party to the conversation (or has a party's permission) may record it while investigating a designated offense connected to organized crime, and federal agents follow federal law. In Commonwealth v. Du (2024) the Supreme Judicial Court suppressed a warrantless secret recording of an undercover drug buy, video included. Open recording, such as visible body cameras with posted notice, is a different question (Commonwealth v. Grimaldi, 2026).