EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsWashington Laws flagWashington Laws
Washington flag

Washington

Washington Audio Recording Laws: Two-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of November 1, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed November 2, 202614 min read

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. · 9 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Washington Audio Recording Laws: Two-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)

Washington requires all-party consent before recording any private audio conversation, whether in person or by phone, under RCW 9.73.030. Recording without consent from every participant is a gross misdemeanor. A narrow exception permits one-party recording when a conversation involves threats of bodily harm, extortion, or blackmail.

Washington has some of the most protective audio recording laws in the United States. As a two-party consent state, Washington requires that all parties to a private communication consent before any audio recording takes place. These rules are codified primarily in RCW 9.73.030 and related statutes within Chapter 9.73 RCW, the Washington Privacy Act.

Understanding these laws is essential for individuals, businesses, journalists, and anyone who records conversations in Washington. The consequences of violating these statutes include criminal prosecution, civil lawsuits with statutory damages, and exclusion of the recording as evidence in Washington courts, subject to two narrow statutory exceptions (RCW 9.73.050).

What Is RCW 9.73.030?

RCW 9.73.030 is the core statute governing audio recording in Washington. It makes it unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington and its political subdivisions to intercept or record any private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device without consent from all parties involved.

Washington requires every party to consent before a private conversation is recorded under RCW 9.73.030; a recorded announcement counts as consent, and threats may be recorded one-party.
Announce the recording to everyone and capture that notice; only threats and a few other narrow exceptions allow one-party recording.

The statute covers two distinct categories of recording:

  • Transmitted communications: Private conversations sent by telephone, telegraph, radio, or any other transmission device between two or more individuals.
  • In-person conversations: Any private conversation captured by any device, electronic or otherwise, designed to record or transmit that conversation.

Both categories require the same thing: consent from every participant before recording begins.

What Counts as a "Private" Communication?

The definition of "private" is central to how RCW 9.73.030 works in practice. The Washington Supreme Court uses a multi-factor test that it laid out in State v. Clark, 129 Wn.2d 211 (1996), and applied in State v. Townsend, 147 Wn.2d 666 (2002). Courts consider:

  • The subjective intention of the parties regarding the privacy of the conversation
  • The duration and subject matter of the communication
  • The location where the conversation takes place
  • The presence of potential third parties who might overhear
  • The relationship between the consenting and nonconsenting parties

A conversation in a crowded public space where others can easily overhear is generally not "private" under the statute. However, a quiet conversation between two people in a corner of a restaurant, where they have taken steps to prevent being overheard, may qualify as private even though it occurs in a public venue.

Washington law provides a straightforward method for obtaining consent. Under RCW 9.73.030(3), consent is deemed obtained when one party announces to all other parties in any reasonably effective manner that the communication or conversation is about to be recorded or transmitted.

Key requirements for a valid announcement:

  • The announcement must be made before recording begins
  • The announcement itself must be recorded
  • The method must be reasonably effective at notifying all parties
  • Continuing the conversation after the announcement constitutes implied consent

This approach is more flexible than some other two-party consent states. Washington does not require each participant to verbally say "I consent." Simply continuing the conversation after a clear announcement is sufficient.

One of the most important features of Washington audio recording law is the threat exception under RCW 9.73.030(2)(b). This provision allows one-party consent recording when the conversation involves:

  • Threats of extortion against any person
  • Threats of blackmail against any person
  • Threats of bodily harm against any person
  • Unlawful requests or demands

A related exception under RCW 9.73.030(2)(c) allows one-party consent recording of communications that occur anonymously or repeatedly or at an extremely inconvenient hour.

Under these exceptions, if someone is threatening you with physical violence, extorting you, or blackmailing you, or harassing you with anonymous, repeated, or late-night calls, you may legally record that conversation with only your own consent. You do not need to announce the recording or obtain consent from the person making the threats.

This exception recognizes that victims of threats and extortion need the ability to preserve evidence without alerting the threatening party. It applies to both telephone and in-person conversations.

Limits of the Threat Exception

The threat exception is narrow. It applies only to the specific threatening content of the conversation. If a conversation begins with ordinary discussion and escalates to threats, the exception covers the threatening portion. Recording must be related to the threatening conduct, not used as a general license to record all interactions with the person.

In State v. Christensen, 153 Wn.2d 186 (2004), the Washington Supreme Court refused to read an unwritten parental-monitoring exception into the Privacy Act, noting that the act's all-party consent requirement contains no such exception and that no Washington court had ever implied one.

Criminal Penalties for Illegal Audio Recording

Washington small audio recorder and over-ear headphones resting on a stack of legal documents

Violating Washington audio recording laws carries significant criminal consequences under RCW 9.73.080.

Penalty Structure

OffenseClassificationMaximum Jail TimeMaximum Fine
Recording without consentGross Misdemeanor364 days$5,000
Altering, erasing, or wrongfully disclosing a police in-car sound recording (RCW 9.73.080(2))Gross Misdemeanor364 days$5,000

Under RCW 9.92.020, a gross misdemeanor carries a maximum sentence of 364 days in county jail and/or a fine of up to $5,000. The legislature set the maximum at 364 days rather than a full year in 2011 to avoid immigration consequences that can attach to convictions with sentences of one year or more.

What Constitutes a Violation

Any of the following acts can trigger criminal liability:

  • Intercepting a private communication without consent
  • Recording a private communication without consent

Chapter 9.73 creates no general crime of sharing a recording. The only disclosure offense covers police in-car sound recordings (RCW 9.73.080(2)). An illegal recording is still inadmissible in court under RCW 9.73.050.

Each separate recording can constitute a separate offense, so a pattern of illegal recording can lead to multiple counts.

Civil Remedies Under RCW 9.73.060

Beyond criminal prosecution, Washington provides a private right of action for victims of illegal recording. RCW 9.73.060 allows any person injured by a violation of the Privacy Act to file a civil lawsuit and recover damages.

Available Damages

Injured parties may recover:

  • Actual damages, including compensation for mental pain and suffering
  • Liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation, up to a maximum of $1,000
  • Reasonable attorney fees and costs of litigation

The injured party can choose between actual damages and liquidated damages, selecting whichever amount is more favorable. No proof of financial harm is required to recover liquidated damages.

These civil remedies exist independently of any criminal prosecution. A person can face both criminal charges and a civil lawsuit for the same illegal recording.

Inadmissibility of Illegal Recordings

Washington three smartphones around a blank document on a wooden desk

Under RCW 9.73.050, any information obtained in violation of Washington's recording law is inadmissible in any civil or criminal case in all courts of general or limited jurisdiction in Washington. There are only two narrow exceptions:

  1. The person whose rights were violated gives permission to use the recording in a damages action
  2. A criminal case involving a crime that would jeopardize national security

This exclusionary rule is broad. Even if an illegally obtained recording contains highly relevant evidence, Washington courts will suppress it. This makes obtaining proper consent not just a legal obligation but a practical necessity for anyone who might need to use a recording as evidence.

Washington courts have recognized that consent can be implied in certain situations. A person is deemed to have consented to recording when they convey a message knowing it will be recorded.

Voicemail and Answering Machines

In In re Marriage of Farr, 87 Wn. App. 177 (1997), the Washington Court of Appeals held that a speaker consented to recording by leaving a voicemail message because "an answering machine's only function is to record messages." This principle extends to:

  • Voicemail messages: Leaving a voicemail implies consent because the sole function of voicemail is to record messages
  • Automated recording systems: Calling into a system that announces it records all calls implies consent if the caller continues
  • Email and electronic messages: Sending messages through systems known to record them implies consent

Beep Tones and Recording Indicators

Unlike some states that allow a periodic beep tone to serve as notice of recording, Washington law requires an announcement in a "reasonably effective manner." A beep tone alone, without additional context, may not satisfy this standard. The safest practice is to provide a clear verbal or recorded announcement.

Federal Law vs. Washington Law

Washington wireless earbuds in their open charging case on a white desk

Federal wiretap law, codified at 18 U.S.C. Section 2511, follows a one-party consent model. Under federal law, it is legal to record a conversation as long as at least one party to the conversation consents.

Washington's two-party consent requirement is stricter than the federal baseline. This is permissible because federal law establishes a floor, not a ceiling, for privacy protections. States are free to impose greater restrictions than federal law requires but cannot allow less protection than the federal standard provides.

When Washington law and federal law conflict, the stricter standard (Washington's) applies to conversations occurring within Washington.

Interstate Recording: When Washington Law Applies

When a conversation involves parties in Washington and another state, the question of which law applies becomes important. If you record a call from Washington, Washington's all-party rule applies no matter where the other person is. The Washington Supreme Court has held that whether a recording is lawful is decided by the law of the place where it is made, so calls recorded in Oregon with one participant's consent did not violate RCW 9.73.030 even though the other participant was in Washington (State v. Fowler, 2006; Kadoranian v. Bellingham Police Department, 1992). Other states' courts and federal courts may analyze this differently, so getting everyone's consent is the safe practice on any call that touches Washington.

Common Interstate Scenarios

  • Washington to Oregon: Oregon lets a participant record a telephone call with one party's consent, but requires that all participants be specifically informed before an in-person conversation or a video conference call is recorded (ORS 165.540). Washington's all-party rule applies when the recording is made in Washington; announcing the recording to everyone is the safe practice either way.
  • Washington to Idaho: Idaho is a one-party consent state. Washington's rule applies if the Washington participant makes the recording.
  • Washington to California: Both states require all-party consent. Announce and get consent from everyone on the call.

When in doubt, always follow the stricter standard and announce that you are recording. For any of these pairs, see both states' rules together in our checker.

Exemptions and Special Circumstances

Several specific exemptions modify the general all-party consent rule under Washington law:

Emergency Communications

RCW 9.73.030(2)(a) allows one-party consent recording of conversations that convey communications to report:

  • A fire
  • A medical emergency
  • A crime
  • A disaster

Journalist Exception

Under RCW 9.73.030(4), employees of newspapers, magazines, wire services, radio stations, or television stations may record without an announcement if they are acting in a bona fide news gathering capacity and their recording device is "readily apparent or obvious" to the speakers. The journalist may be full-time, part-time, or a contractor.

Hostage Situations

RCW 9.73.030(2)(d) allows one-party consent recording of communications by a hostage holder or anyone who has barricaded themselves and is threatening to take their own life or the lives of others.

Building Owner Exception

Under RCW 9.73.110, building owners may intercept and record communications within their building without consent, but only when the persons being recorded are engaged in a criminal act such as unlawful entry.

Law Enforcement

RCW 9.73.090 provides specific recording exceptions for law enforcement, including incoming emergency calls, recordings of arrested persons, and sound recorded with patrol-car video cameras by uniformed officers. RCW 9.73.090 does not cover body-worn cameras; those rest on the rule that officers' official conversations with the public are generally not private.

Audio Recording Devices Under Washington Law

Washington's two-party consent rule applies regardless of the technology used to capture audio. This includes:

  • Smartphones with voice memo or call recording apps
  • Digital voice recorders and dictation devices
  • AI-powered voice recorders that transcribe in real time
  • Smart speakers and home assistants that capture audio
  • Body cameras with audio recording capability
  • Hidden microphones or surveillance equipment

The statute targets the act of recording, not the specific device. Any device "designed to record or transmit" a conversation falls under RCW 9.73.030. Using newer technology like AI transcription tools does not create an exemption from the consent requirement.

Biometric Privacy Considerations

Devices that process voice data may also implicate Washington's biometric privacy law, RCW 19.375. If a recording device captures voiceprints or other biometric identifiers for a commercial purpose, RCW 19.375.020 requires the entity operating the device to provide notice, obtain consent, or offer a mechanism to prevent that use before enrolling that data in a biometric database; satisfying any one of the three is sufficient. This creates overlapping legal exposure for businesses using voice recognition technology.

Key Court Cases Shaping Washington Audio Recording Law

Several important cases have defined how Washington's audio recording statutes apply in practice:

State v. Townsend (2002)

The Washington Supreme Court applied the multi-factor privacy test from State v. Clark (1996), which looks at the parties' subjective intentions, the duration and subject matter of the communication, the location, the presence of potential third parties, and the relationship between the parties. It held that a man who sent email and ICQ messages impliedly consented to their being recorded, because he knew the messages would be recorded.

State v. Christensen (2004)

A mother used the speakerphone function of the family's cordless telephone base unit to secretly listen to her daughter's call. The Washington Supreme Court held that the conversation was private and that the base unit was a device designed to transmit, so the Privacy Act applied. The court also refused to read an unwritten parental-monitoring exception into the act, noting that its all-party consent requirement contains no such exception and that no Washington court had ever implied one.

In re Marriage of Farr (1997)

The Washington Court of Appeals held that leaving a voicemail message constitutes implied consent to recording because the sole function of voicemail is to record. This case established the principle that using a system designed to record implies consent to that recording.

State v. Kipp (2014)

In State v. Kipp, 179 Wn.2d 718 (2014), the Washington Supreme Court examined whether a secretly recorded conversation between Kipp and his brother-in-law met RCW 9.73.030's "private communication" threshold. The trial court and a divided Court of Appeals had found the conversation was not private and admitted the recording. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that Kipp had both a subjective and reasonable expectation of privacy while speaking with his brother-in-law about a sensitive family matter. Because the recording violated the Privacy Act, the trial court should have suppressed it under RCW 9.73.050.

More Washington Recording Laws

Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording

Back to Washington Recording Laws

More Washington Recording Topics

More Washington Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Washington a one-party or two-party consent state for audio recording?

Washington is a two-party (all-party) consent state. Under RCW 9.73.030, recording any private communication requires the consent of every person involved in the conversation. This applies to both in-person conversations and telephone calls. The term two-party consent is somewhat misleading because if three or more people are part of the conversation, all of them need to consent.

Can I record a conversation with someone who is threatening me in Washington?

Yes. RCW 9.73.030(2)(b) provides an exception that allows one-party consent recording when the conversation conveys threats of extortion, blackmail, or bodily harm. If someone is threatening you with physical violence, you can record the conversation without their knowledge or consent. This exception also covers unlawful requests or demands. A related exception under RCW 9.73.030(2)(c) covers harassing communications that are anonymous, repeated, or occur at an extremely inconvenient hour.

What are the penalties for illegally recording someone in Washington?

Illegally recording a private conversation in Washington is a gross misdemeanor under RCW 9.73.080, punishable by up to 364 days in jail and a $5,000 fine. Victims can also file a civil lawsuit under RCW 9.73.060 and recover actual damages or liquidated damages of $100 per day (capped at $1,000), plus reasonable attorney fees.

Can an illegally recorded conversation be used as evidence in Washington?

No. Under RCW 9.73.050, any information obtained in violation of Washington's Privacy Act is inadmissible in any civil or criminal court in Washington. The only exceptions are when the recorded person gives permission to use it in a damages lawsuit, or when the case involves a crime that would jeopardize national security.

Do I need consent to record a conversation in a public place in Washington?

Not necessarily. Washington's recording law applies only to private communications. If a conversation takes place in a public setting where the participants have no reasonable expectation of privacy, the statute does not apply. Courts use multiple factors to determine privacy, including the location, whether third parties are present, and whether the speakers took steps to keep the conversation private.

Updates

Removed an unsourced claim ranking Washington's exclusionary rule against other states.

We clarified that RCW 9.73.050 excludes unlawful recordings in Washington courts, with narrow exceptions, and that Washington law governs a cross-border call when the recording is made in Washington.

Clarified that Washington's rule governs a Washington-to-Idaho call when the Washington participant records it, and listed both statutory exceptions to inadmissibility in the key takeaways.

We corrected this page's description of Washington's disclosure offense, which state's law governs interstate calls, the scope of the police recording exemption, and what State v. Townsend decided.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

Corrected the description of Oregon's recording rule in the interstate section: Oregon allows one-party recording of phone calls but requires every participant to be informed before an in-person conversation or video call is recorded.

Corrected the description of State v. Christensen to what the Washington Supreme Court actually held, removing a claim about narrowly reading the Privacy Act's exceptions that the opinion does not make.

Corrected a fabricated 1984 case citation to the real 2014 State v. Kipp decision and its actual holding, and fixed a biometric-privacy compliance description that incorrectly required both notice and consent when Washington law accepts any one of three options.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

Corrected the RCW 9.73.030 subsection citations for Washington's one-party-consent exceptions: harassment (anonymous/repeated/inconvenient-hour calls) is subsection (2)(c) not (2)(b), the hostage/barricade exception is (2)(d) not (2)(c), and the journalist exception is subsection (4) not (1)(a).

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Sources and References

  1. RCW 9.73.030 - Intercepting, Recording, or Divulging Private Communications(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
  2. RCW 9.73.050 - Admissibility of Intercepted Communications(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
  3. RCW 9.73.060 - Civil Damages for Privacy Violations(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
  4. RCW 9.73.080 - Criminal Penalties(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
  5. RCW 9.73.090 - Law Enforcement Recording Exceptions(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
  6. RCW 9.73.110 - Building Owner Exception(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
  7. RCW 19.375 - Biometric Identifiers(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
  8. RCW 9.92.020 - Gross Misdemeanor Penalties(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
  9. 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
  10. Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 165 (ORS 165.535, 165.540), Oregon State Legislature(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
  11. State v. Fowler, 157 Wn.2d 387 (2006) (law of the place of recording governs)(static.case.law)
Share: