Oregon
Oregon Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Legal Limits
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. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Oregon law allows you to record police officers performing official duties in public. The First Amendment protects this right, and ORS 165.540 sets the rules: silent video of police in public does not trigger ORS 165.540, while ORS 165.540(5)(b) allows you to record audio of a conversation with an on-duty officer if you record openly and in plain view, the conversation is audible to you by normal unaided hearing, and you are in a place where you lawfully may be.
You have the right to record police officers in Oregon when they are performing their duties in public. The First Amendment protects this right, and federal courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, have repeatedly affirmed it. However, Oregon's split consent framework under ORS 165.540 adds specific rules about audio recording that you need to understand before pressing record.
This guide explains your rights and responsibilities when recording law enforcement in Oregon in 2026, including what you can legally film, how the split consent framework applies, and what to do if an officer tells you to stop recording.
Your First Amendment Right to Record Police
The Constitutional Foundation
The right to record government officials, including police officers, performing their public duties is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Oregon, has recognized this right in multiple decisions. In Fordyce v. Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), the Ninth Circuit recognized a First Amendment right to film matters of public interest, including police officers working a public protest march. In Askins v. DHS, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018), the court reaffirmed that the First Amendment protects the right to photograph and record matters of public interest, including law enforcement officers performing their official duties in public places, and let a lawsuit go forward by people whose photos taken at border ports of entry were deleted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers.
This right applies when:
- Officers are conducting traffic stops in public
- Officers are making arrests on public streets or in public buildings
- Officers are responding to incidents in public areas
- Officers are interacting with protesters or demonstrators
- Officers are performing any official duty visible to the public
The right to record is not unlimited. You must not physically interfere with police operations, obstruct officers in the performance of their duties, or place yourself or others in danger.
Oregon's Position on Recording Police
The right to record police derives from the First Amendment, and Oregon's recording statute also addresses it directly. ORS 165.540(5)(b) exempts a person who records a conversation in which a law enforcement officer is a participant from the general notice rule, as long as the conditions described below are met. The practical effect is that you can record police, but you need to meet those conditions when your recording captures audio.
How Oregon's Split Consent Framework Applies to Recording Police

Silent Video Recording of Police
Recording silent video of police officers in public is legal and does not trigger any provision of ORS 165.540. The wiretapping statute governs audio interception, not visual recording. You can:

- Film police activity with your phone's camera (video only, no audio)
- Use a camcorder or digital camera to record video
- Stream silent video live to social media
Audio Recording of Police in Public
When your recording captures audio of an in-person conversation, Oregon's general rule under ORS 165.540(1)(c) requires that all participants be specifically informed that the conversation is being recorded. For conversations with police, however, the statute contains a specific exception.
The police-participant exception under ORS 165.540(5)(b) says the notice rule does not apply to a person who records a conversation in which a law enforcement officer is a participant, if:
- The recording is made while the officer is performing official duties
- The recording is made openly and in plain view of the participants in the conversation
- The conversation is audible to the person recording by normal unaided hearing
- The person recording is in a place where the person lawfully may be
ORS 165.540(10) adds that this exception does not authorize criminal trespass or interfering with a peace officer under ORS 162.247. A hidden recording, or one made from a place you have no right to be, falls outside the exception.
The unconcealed device exception under ORS 165.540(6)(a) is a separate provision. It covers recording with an unconcealed device at listed proceedings such as public meetings, hearings, trials, press conferences, public speeches and rallies. It can support recording at a rally or demonstration, but the provision that addresses an ordinary traffic stop or arrest is ORS 165.540(5)(b).
Practical Guidance for Audio Recording of Police
Given the legal complexity, here is practical guidance:
- Always keep your recording device visible. Do not conceal your phone or camera. ORS 165.540(5)(b) protects audio recording of officers only when it is made openly and in plain view.
- Stay where you lawfully may be. The exception also requires that you be lawfully present and that the conversation be audible to you by normal unaided hearing.
- Do not interfere with police activity. Maintain a reasonable distance. Record from the sidewalk or other public areas.
- Be prepared to identify yourself. While Oregon does not have a stop-and-identify statute for bystanders, cooperation can prevent escalation.
- If asked to stop recording, calmly assert your right. You can state: "I am exercising my First Amendment right to record in a public place." Do not argue or become confrontational.
What Police Officers Can and Cannot Do

Officers Cannot:
- Order you to stop recording their public activities solely because you are filming
- Search the contents of your phone without a warrant (Riley v. California, 2014), although they may hold the phone while they get one if they have probable cause it contains evidence
- Delete your recordings; they have no legal authority to do so
- Arrest you solely for recording their public activities
- Demand that you unlock your phone to review recordings without a warrant
Officers Can:
- Ask you to move back if you are physically interfering with their work or creating a safety hazard
- Establish a perimeter and require bystanders to stay outside it
- Arrest you for obstruction under ORS 162.247 if your recording activities actually interfere with their duties
- Seize and search your device with a warrant as part of a criminal investigation, or hold it while they seek a warrant if they have probable cause it contains evidence
- Order you to move if you are in an area that poses immediate danger
ORS 162.247: Interfering With a Police Officer
Oregon's interference statute makes it a Class A misdemeanor to intentionally act in a way that prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer from performing lawful duties. Simply recording from a safe distance does not constitute interference. However, the following could be considered interference:
- Physically blocking an officer's path while recording
- Reaching into a police vehicle to get a better angle
- Shouting at officers to distract them during an arrest
- Crossing a police line or entering a restricted area
- Standing so close that you impede officer movement
Recording Police During Protests and Demonstrations

Rights of Protesters and Bystanders
Oregon has seen significant protest activity, particularly in Portland. During protests and demonstrations:
- You can record police activity from public areas
- The unconcealed device exception supports recording at rallies and public demonstrations with a visible device
- Press and citizen journalists have the same recording rights as other members of the public
- Police crowd-control actions, use of force, and arrests can be recorded
Police Use of Surveillance During Protests
Oregon law places some limits on law enforcement surveillance. ORS 181A.250 restricts law enforcement agencies from collecting or maintaining information about the political, religious, or social activities of individuals unless there is reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct. This statute limits the scope of police surveillance at protests and demonstrations.
The City of Portland has additional ordinances governing surveillance technology. The Portland City Code Chapter 34.10 requires city bureaus to obtain approval before acquiring or using surveillance technologies.
Law Enforcement Body Cameras
Oregon Body Camera Policies
Oregon law does not mandate body cameras statewide, but many departments have adopted them. The Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training provides training standards that include guidance on body camera use.
Body camera recordings by law enforcement are governed by ORS 133.741, which sets standards for law enforcement body cameras, and are also subject to ORS 165.540(5)(d), which exempts a uniformed officer displaying a badge who operates a body-worn camera recording on-duty interactions with the public, unless the officer has an opportunity to announce at the beginning of the interaction that the conversation is being obtained and can do so without jeopardy to anyone and without unreasonably impairing a criminal investigation.
Public Records Requests for Body Camera Footage
Oregon treats police body-camera recordings as conditionally exempt from disclosure under the Oregon Public Records Law. Under ORS 192.345(40), they are released only when the public interest requires disclosure in the particular case, and then:
- The request must identify the approximate date and time of the incident
- The request must be reasonably tailored to the material the public interest requires
- Released video must be edited so that the faces of all persons in it are unidentifiable
- Recordings sealed or ordered withheld by a court may not be disclosed
To request body camera footage, submit a public records request to the specific law enforcement agency. Agencies may charge fees for review and production of records.
What to Do If Your Rights Are Violated
During the Encounter
- Remain calm and do not resist physically
- Clearly state that you believe your recording rights are being violated
- Do not consent to device searches
- Note the officer's badge number, name, and patrol car number
- Look for witnesses who observed the encounter
After the Encounter
- Document everything in writing as soon as possible
- If your device was seized, do not attempt to retrieve it without legal advice
- File a complaint with the law enforcement agency's internal affairs division
- Contact the ACLU of Oregon for guidance on civil rights violations
- Consult with a civil rights attorney about potential claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983, which allows lawsuits against government officials who violate constitutional rights
Penalties Related to Recording Police Encounters
Penalties for Obstructing Police
If your recording activity crosses the line into interference with police duties under ORS 162.247:
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Interfering with a police officer | Class A misdemeanor | 364 days jail, $6,250 fine |
Penalties for Illegal Audio Recording
If audio recording of a police encounter violates ORS 165.540:
| Penalty | Maximum |
|---|---|
| Jail time | Up to 364 days |
| Fine | Up to $6,250 |
Penalties for Officers Who Violate Your Rights
Officers who unlawfully seize your device, delete recordings, or arrest you for lawful recording activity may face:
- Internal department discipline
- Civil liability under 42 U.S.C. 1983
- Qualified immunity can still bar recovery: an officer is liable for damages only if the right was clearly established for the specific conduct at the time, and courts in other circuits have recognized the right to record while still granting officers immunity
Oregon 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
More Oregon Recording Topics
More Oregon Laws
- Oregon AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Oregon Dashcam Laws
- Oregon Data Privacy Laws
- Oregon Deepfake Laws
- Oregon Employee Monitoring Laws
- Oregon GPS Tracking Laws
- Oregon Police Bodycam Laws
- Oregon Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record police officers in Oregon?
Yes. You have a First Amendment right to record police officers performing their duties in public. Silent video of police in public does not trigger ORS 165.540, though trespass and interference laws still apply. For audio recording, ORS 165.540(5)(b) allows you to record a conversation with an on-duty officer if you record openly and in plain view, the conversation is audible to you by normal unaided hearing, and you are in a place where you lawfully may be. Do not physically interfere with police operations.
Can a police officer tell me to stop recording in Oregon?
An officer cannot order you to stop recording solely because you are filming. However, an officer can ask you to move if you are physically interfering with their duties, creating a safety hazard, or within an established perimeter. If asked to move back, comply while continuing to record from a safe distance.
Can police seize my phone in Oregon?
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 probable cause it contains evidence. Officers have no authority to delete your recordings. If your phone is seized, do not consent to a search and contact an attorney.
Can I record police during a protest in Oregon?
Yes. The First Amendment protects recording at protests and demonstrations. Oregon's unconcealed device exception also supports recording at rallies and public demonstrations with a visible device. Stay at a safe distance, do not interfere with police operations, and keep your recording device visible.
What should I do if police violate my recording rights in Oregon?
Remain calm during the encounter and do not resist. Note the officer's badge number and name. Document everything in writing afterward. File a complaint with the department's internal affairs division. Contact the ACLU of Oregon or a civil rights attorney about potential claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
Updates
We replaced an absolute statement about officers deleting recordings with the narrower point that officers have no authority to delete them.
We corrected the en banc vote in Project Veritas v. Schmidt to 9-2, clarified that police generally need a warrant to search a phone but may hold it while they get one, replaced an incorrect description of body-camera public-records rules with ORS 192.345(40), and narrowed statements that silent video is always lawful and that qualified immunity is weak in recording cases.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the audio-recording section to rest on ORS 165.540(5)(b), which lets you openly record on-duty officers from a place you lawfully may be, and clarified that police body cameras fall under ORS 165.540(5)(d).
Corrected the descriptions of Fordyce v. Seattle and Askins v. DHS to match what the Ninth Circuit actually decided in each case.
Corrected a KeyTakeaways bullet that inverted Project Veritas v. Schmidt's holding: the case upheld Oregon's all-party notification requirement, it did not create a right to record police, which instead comes from Fordyce v. Seattle and Askins v. DHS.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected three mis-cites of the unconcealed-device exception (KeyTakeaways, body text, and FAQ) from ORS 165.540(2), the telecom-employee/jail-official exception, to the correct ORS 165.540(6)(a).
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
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.
Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 165: Offenses Involving Fraud or Deception
§ 165.540Obtaining contents of communicationsIn forcecited in 49 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 or 133.726 or subsections (2) to (8) of this section, a person may not: (a) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a telecommunication or a radio communication to which the person is not a participant, by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, unless consent is given by at least one participant. (b) Tamper with the wires, connections, boxes, fuses, circuits, lines or any other equipment or facilities of a telecommunication or radio communication company over which messages are transmitted, with the intent to obtain unlawfully the contents of a telecommunication or radio communication to which the person is not a participant. (c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 76 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Fleetwood (2000) applied ORS 165.540 to body wire evidence, holding that words spoken into a telephone are a telecommunication under subsection (1)(a) and that the (5)(a)(B) exception fails unless the officer or the officer's agent shares reciprocally in the conversation, so the recordings were inadmissible.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Klein (Oregon Supreme Court 2012, 352 Or. 302)“…eing 3 recorded. Conversations recorded in violation of ORS 165.540 are not admissible in 4 court excep…”
- North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Oliver (Oregon Supreme Court 1979, 286 Or. 639)✓A lumber wholesaler secretly monitored traders' calls; on de novo review the court said the practice may have violated ORS 165.540 but refused to rest unclean hands on it, since the ex-employee's calls were never monitored. The employer's noncompete suit failed on other grounds.
- State v. Fleetwood (Oregon Supreme Court 2000, 331 Or. 511)✓A detective wired an informant and recorded the suspect's side of a phone call and his talks with his mother and a juvenile seller; the court held those interceptions violated ORS 165.540(1)(a) and (1)(c) because the informant was not a participant, and upheld suppression.
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 You Record ICE Agents? Know Your Rights by State (2026), Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026)
Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 162: Offenses Against the State and Public Justice
§ 162.247Interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officerIn force
(1) A person commits the crime of interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer if the person, knowing that another person is a peace officer or a parole and probation officer as defined in ORS 181A.355, intentionally or knowingly acts in a manner that prevents, or attempts to prevent, the peace officer or parole and probation officer from performing the lawful duties of the officer with regard to another person or a criminal investigation. (2) Interfering with a peace officer or parole and probation officer is a Class A misdemeanor. (3) This section does not apply: (a) In situations in which the person is engaging in passive resistance. (b) To the act of informing another person of the other person’s civil or constitutional rights. (4) A person may not be arrested or charged under this section if the person is arrested or charged for another offense based on the same conduct. [1997 c.719 §1; 1999 c.1040 §7; 2005 c.668 §1; 2021 c.254 §1; 2025 c.246 §3] Note: 162.247 was enacted into law by the Legislative Assembly but was not added to or made a part of ORS chapter 162 or any series therein by legislative action.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 120 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Ashbaugh (Oregon Supreme Court 2010, 349 Or. 297)“…rkeby. See ORS 811.535 (failure to obey a police officer); ORS 162.247(l)(b) (failure to obey a peace officer)…”
- State v. Backstrand (Oregon Supreme Court 2013, 354 Or. 392)“…igating are simply inapplicable in this circumstance. See ORS 162.247(l)(a) (crime to prevent officer from pe…”
- State v. McNally (Oregon Supreme Court 2017, 361 Or. 314)“…cer charged him with Interfering with a Peace Officer under ORS 162.247(1)(b). The trial court later refused de…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 181A: State Police; Crime Reporting and Records; Public Safety Standards and Training; Private Security
§ 181A.250Specific information not to be collected or maintainedIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
No law enforcement agency, as defined in ORS 181A.010, may collect or maintain information about the political, religious or social views, associations or activities of any individual, group, association, organization, corporation, business or partnership unless such information directly relates to an investigation of criminal activities, and there are reasonable grounds to suspect the subject of the information is or may be involved in criminal conduct. [Formerly 181.575] Note: 181A.250 was made a part of 181A.160 to 181A.250 by legislative action but was not added to 181A.010 to 181A.350. See Preface to Oregon Revised Statutes for further explanation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- ACLU of Oregon v. City of Portland (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2025, 338 Or. App. 750)“…t least portions” of the livestreams in this case “violated ORS 181A.250” and “breached [the PPB’s] obligations”…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Oregon License Plate Reader Laws (2026)
Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 192: Records; Public Reports and Meetings
§ 192.311Definitions for ORS 192.311 to 192.478In forcecited in 4 of our articles
As used in ORS 192.311 to 192.478: (1) “Business day” means a day other than Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday and on which at least one paid employee of the public body that received the public records request is scheduled to and does report to work. In the case of a community college district, community college service district, public university, school district or education service district, “business day” does not include any day on which the central administration offices of the district or university are closed. (2) “Custodian” means: (a) The person described in ORS 7.110 for purposes of court records; or (b) A public body mandated, directly or indirectly, to create, maintain, care for or control a public record. “Custodian” does not include a public body that has custody of a public record as an agent of another public body that is the custodian unless the public record is not otherwise available. (3) “Person” includes any natural person, corporation, partnership, firm, association or member or committee of the Legislative Assembly.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 17 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bialostosky v. Cummings (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2022, 319 Or. App. 352)“…dy” subject to the Oregon Inspection of Public Records law, ORS 192.311 - 192.478, and, if so, whether the note…”
- Chaimov v. Dept. of Admin. Services (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2021, 314 Or. App. 253)“…section for a communication ordered to be disclosed under ORS 192.311 to 192.478.” (Emphasis added.) We n…”
- City of Portland v. Bartlett (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2020, 304 Or. App. 580)“…owing public records are exempt from disclo- sure under ORS 192.311 to 192.478: “* * * * * “…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Oregon Court Records: OJCIN, the Free Alternative, and Setting Aside a Conviction, Oregon Police Bodycam Laws: Retention, Access & Facial Recognition Ban, Oregon Public Records Law: How to Request Public Records
§ 192.345Public records conditionally exempt from disclosureIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
192.345 Public records conditionally exempt from disclosure. The following public records are exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.311 to 192.478 unless the public interest requires disclosure in the particular instance: (1) Records of a public body pertaining to litigation to which the public body is a party if the complaint has been filed, or if the complaint has not been filed, if the public body shows that such litigation is reasonably likely to occur. This exemption does not apply to litigation which has been concluded, and nothing in this subsection shall limit any right or opportunity granted by discovery or deposition statutes to a party to litigation or potential litigation. (2) Trade secrets. “Trade secrets,” as used in this section, may include, but are not limited
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Also relied on in: Are Autopsies Public Records? Vital Records Explained, Are Autopsy Reports Public in Oregon? (2026 Guide), Oregon Police Reports: How to Get a Crash or Incident Report
United States Code Title 42
§ 1983Civil action for deprivation of rightsIn forcecited in 52 of our articles
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-16 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 282,365 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal (Supreme Court of the United States 2009, 556 U.S. 662)“…its brought against state officials under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983.” Hartman, 547 U. S., at 254, n. 2. Cf.…”
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Catrett (Supreme Court of the United States 1986, 477 U.S. 317)“…policeman as she left. Petitioner brought an action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 claiming that the refusal of service a…”
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs. (Supreme Court of the United States 1978, 436 U.S. 658)“…decided less than two decades ago. Focusing new light on 42 U. S. C. § 1983 , that decision widened access to the f…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: 11th Circuit Voids Notice Before Eviction Deposit Forfeiture, Florida Man Sues Police Over Facial Recognition Arrest (2026), Tenth Circuit Affirms Club Q Dismissals Under Colorado's CPLA
Sources and References
- ORS 165.540 - Obtaining Contents of Communications(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
- ORS 162.247 - Interfering With a Police Officer(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
- ORS 181A.250 - Law Enforcement Surveillance Limits(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
- ORS 192.311-478 - Oregon Public Records Law(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
- Oregon DPSST(oregon.gov).gov
- 42 U.S.C. 1983 - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights(law.cornell.edu)
- Project Veritas v. Schmidt - Ninth Circuit En Banc Opinion(cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov).gov