Arizona
Arizona Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know
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. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Under A.R.S. 13-3005, Arizona follows a one-party consent rule for phone calls: any participant in a call may record it without notifying or obtaining permission from the other parties, and unlawful recording is a Class 5 felony under A.R.S. 13-3005.
Arizona allows you to record your own phone calls without telling the other person. Under ARS 13-3005, the state follows a one-party consent framework for recording wire, oral, and electronic communications. As long as you are a participant in the phone call, you can record it without notifying or obtaining permission from anyone else on the line.
Arizona does not recognize a special exception for phone line owners who are not on the call. Under ARS 13-3005 and its exemption at ARS 13-3012(9), a recording is lawful when it is made by, or with the consent of, a party to the communication or a person present during it. Merely owning the phone line does not by itself satisfy the consent requirement if no party has consented.
This guide covers everything you need to know about recording phone calls in Arizona in 2026, including what the law actually says, how it applies to different types of calls, how businesses can lawfully record calls on company lines, what happens when you call someone in another state, and how recorded calls can be used as evidence.
What Arizona Law Says About Recording Phone Calls
The Core Statute: ARS 13-3005
Arizona's wiretapping and eavesdropping laws are found in Title 13, Chapter 30 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. The primary statute, ARS 13-3005, makes it illegal to intentionally intercept any wire or electronic communication, or to intentionally intercept any oral communication at which the person is not present, unless at least one party to the communication consents.
The critical phrase is "unless at least one party consents." Because you are always a party to your own phone calls, your own consent satisfies the one-party requirement. You do not need to announce "this call is being recorded" or get anyone else's permission.
Types of Phone Calls Covered
The statute covers all forms of wire and electronic communications. In practical terms, this includes:
- Landline telephone calls placed through traditional copper wire networks
- Cell phone calls made through cellular networks
- VoIP calls placed through services like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Skype, and other internet-based platforms
- Video calls with audio on any platform, including FaceTime and WhatsApp
- Conference calls where multiple participants are on the line
The law does not distinguish between personal calls and business calls. The same one-party consent rule applies regardless of the purpose of the call.
What "Intercept" Means Under Arizona Law
Under ARS 13-3001, "intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device. This definition is broad enough to cover recording with a smartphone, a dedicated voice recorder, a computer application, or any other tool capable of capturing audio.
Recording your phone call with a smartphone app, an external recorder, or built-in call recording software all fall within the scope of lawful one-party consent recording, as long as you are an active participant in the call.
Can You Record Your Own Phone Calls in Arizona?
Yes. You have the legal right to record any phone call you participate in. Arizona's one-party consent law means your own knowledge of and consent to the recording is sufficient. You do not need to:
- Tell the other person you are recording
- Play a beep tone during the call
- Get written or verbal consent from the other party
- Provide any notification before or during the call
This applies whether you are calling someone or receiving a call. The only requirement is that you are an active participant in the conversation being recorded.
What You Cannot Do
While you can freely record your own calls, the law draws a clear line at recording conversations you are not part of. The following activities are illegal under ARS 13-3005:
- Wiretapping someone else's phone line to listen to or record their calls without the consent of a party to, or a person present during, the call
- Using a listening device to capture a phone call between two other people
- Asking a third party to record a call you are not involved in, without consent from at least one participant
- Intercepting electronic communications such as text messages or data transmissions without authorization
Business and Family Phone Line Recording
What the Statute Actually Allows
ARS 13-3005 does not create an exception for phone line owners who are not on the call. The exemption at ARS 13-3012(9) covers interceptions "effected with the consent of a party to the communication or a person who is present during the communication." Owning the line, by itself, is not one of the statute's listed exemptions.
How This Affects Businesses
Arizona businesses can still record calls on company phone systems, but the legal basis is participant consent, not line ownership:
- Call monitoring programs are lawful when the employee handling the call, who is a party to it, consents to the recording
- Quality assurance recording of customer service calls is permitted when the employee on the line consents, consistent with company policy
- Training and compliance recording is lawful for the same reason: a participating employee's consent satisfies the one-party consent requirement
Businesses do not need to inform callers about recording on company-owned lines under state law, though many choose to do so as a best practice and to avoid liability when a caller is in a two-party consent state.
How This Affects Families
There is no separate exception for family phone lines either. A parent who is a party to, or present during, a call with a minor child may record it under the one-party consent rule. Recording a call on a shared line that the parent is not part of and not present for is not covered by ARS 13-3005 or its exemptions.
If you are considering recording calls on a line you or your business owns but are not participating in or present for, consulting with an Arizona attorney is advisable.
Recording Phone Calls Across State Lines
Why This Matters
The United States does not have a single, uniform recording consent law. Each state sets its own rules. When you place a call from Arizona to someone in another state, the question becomes: which state's law applies?
The General Rule
No single rule decides which state's law governs a call between Arizona and an all-party consent state; courts decide it case by case. California's Supreme Court applied California's all-party rule going forward to a Georgia firm that recorded calls with California clients, while applying Georgia law to the firm's past recordings (Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 39 Cal. 4th 95 (2006)), while other courts have applied the law of the place where the recording was made. So if you are in Arizona and you call someone in California, the California standard may apply. This means you could face liability under California law for recording that call without the other person's consent, even though the recording would be perfectly legal under Arizona law.
Two-Party Consent States to Watch
The following states require consent from all parties to a phone call before recording is legal (Delaware's two statutes conflict on this point; Oregon's all-party rule covers in-person conversations, not calls):
| State | Key Statute |
|---|---|
| California | Penal Code 632 |
| Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d |
| Delaware | 11 Del. C. 1335 (conflicts with 11 Del. C. 2402) |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. 934.03 |
| Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 |
| Maryland | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402 |
| Massachusetts | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99 |
| Montana | Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213 |
| Nevada | Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620 (phone calls) |
| New Hampshire | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 570-A:2 |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa.C.S. 5703 |
| Washington | Wash. Rev. Code 9.73.030 |
Best Practice for Interstate Calls
When calling someone in a two-party consent state, the safest approach is to inform the other party that you are recording. Check the other state's rule in our recording consent checker so you know whether all-party consent applies before you place the call. A simple statement like "I am recording this call for my records" at the beginning of the conversation protects you from potential liability. If the other person objects, you can either stop recording or end the call.
Federal Law: Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act
Federal wiretapping law under 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) also lets a party to a call record it, or anyone record with a party's prior consent, unless the recording is made to commit a crime or a tort. Arizona's rule is broader in two respects: ARS 13-3012(9) also accepts the consent of a person present during the communication, who need not be a party, and it has no criminal-or-tortious-purpose limit.
Federal law applies separately, so a recording Arizona allows can still be a federal crime. The safe rule is to record only calls you are on, or calls where a participant has agreed, and never to record in order to commit a crime or a civil wrong.
Business Phone Call Recording in Arizona
Employer Recording of Business Calls
Arizona businesses can record phone calls for legitimate business purposes, including:
- Quality assurance and customer service monitoring
- Training purposes to coach employees on call handling
- Compliance documentation for regulated industries like finance and healthcare
- Dispute resolution to maintain accurate records of verbal agreements
Under the one-party consent framework, Arizona businesses can record calls made on company phone systems when the employee handling the call, who is a party to it, consents to the recording. The business owner's authorization alone, without a participating party's consent, does not satisfy the statute.
Notice Requirements for Businesses
While Arizona law does not require businesses to notify callers about recording on company-owned lines, many businesses choose to provide notice as a best practice. Common methods include:
- A recorded announcement at the beginning of the call ("This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes")
- A periodic beep tone during the call
- Written disclosure in service agreements or terms of service
- Verbal notice from the employee at the start of the conversation
Providing notice protects the business from liability in interstate calls and builds customer trust. It also addresses potential concerns under the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits deceptive practices.
Employee Rights When Being Recorded
Arizona employees have the right to record their own phone calls at work under the one-party consent law. This includes calls with supervisors, HR representatives, clients, and coworkers. However, employers may have internal policies that restrict or prohibit recording. Violating an employer's recording policy can result in disciplinary action or termination, even though the recording itself is legal under state law.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) provides some protection. The NLRB has ruled that overly broad no-recording policies can violate Section 7 of the NLRA when they interfere with employees' rights to engage in protected concerted activity, such as documenting unsafe working conditions or wage violations.
Recording Phone Calls for Evidence in Arizona
Admissibility in Court
Phone call recordings made in compliance with Arizona's one-party consent law are generally admissible as evidence in both criminal and civil proceedings. To use a recording as evidence, you typically need to establish:
- Authentication: Prove the recording is genuine, unaltered, and accurately represents the conversation that took place
- Relevance: Show the recording relates to the issues being decided in the case
- Chain of custody: Demonstrate how the recording has been stored and handled since it was made
- Foundation testimony: Provide testimony from a person who can identify the voices on the recording
Criminal Cases
Arizona's wiretap chapter has no general rule of its own that keeps an illegally made private recording out of court; its only exclusion provision, in ARS 13-3015, covers emergency law-enforcement interceptions a court does not later authorize. A recording that also violates the federal Wiretap Act can be excluded under 18 U.S.C. 2515, and a judge can exclude any recording under the ordinary rules of evidence. The bigger risk falls on the person who made it, who may face Class 5 felony charges under ARS 13-3005 and a civil lawsuit.
Court-authorized wiretaps are a separate track: ARS 13-3012 exempts properly authorized interceptions from the chapter's prohibitions, and ARS 13-3010 sets the rules for those orders.
Civil Cases
In civil cases, legally recorded phone calls can serve as evidence in contract disputes, harassment claims, personal injury cases, and family law matters. Arizona courts have broad discretion in determining the admissibility of recordings, weighing their probative value against any potential for unfair prejudice under Arizona Rule of Evidence 403, a rule of the Arizona Supreme Court.
Best Practices for Recording Evidence
If you plan to use a phone call recording as evidence in an Arizona court:
- Keep the original recording file completely unedited
- Note the date, time, duration, and participants of the call immediately after recording
- Store the original file in a secure location with backup copies
- Do not share the recording unnecessarily before presenting it in court
- Consult with an attorney about proper procedures for introducing the recording as evidence
- Be prepared to testify about the circumstances under which the recording was made
Penalties for Illegal Phone Call Recording in Arizona
Criminal Penalties
Illegally recording a phone call in Arizona is a Class 5 felony under ARS 13-3005. Sentencing follows ARS 13-702, Arizona's presumptive sentencing guidelines for first-time offenders:
| Category | Sentence |
|---|---|
| Mitigated | 0.5 years |
| Presumptive | 1.5 years |
| Aggravated | 2.5 years |
| Maximum fine | $150,000 |
These are the prison terms if prison is imposed. Prison is not automatic: a court may suspend sentence and impose probation for an eligible offender (ARS 13-901), and first-time non-dangerous offenders are generally probation eligible. Judges can impose mitigated or aggravated terms based on circumstances outlined in ARS 13-701.
Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Offenders
With prior felony convictions, sentences increase substantially under Arizona's repeat offender sentencing guidelines. Repeat offenders convicted of illegal wiretapping can face sentences of up to 7.5 years in prison.
Civil Liability
Arizona's own civil statute, ARS 12-731, lets the person recorded sue for the greatest of actual damages plus the violator's profits, $100 for each day of violation, or $10,000, plus punitive damages in appropriate cases and attorney fees. The lawsuit must be filed within one year after the person first had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.
Victims of illegal phone call recording may also file civil lawsuits for:
- Invasion of privacy
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress
- Statutory damages under federal wiretapping laws (18 U.S.C. 2520)
- Punitive damages in egregious cases
AI Transcription and Phone Call Recording
AI-powered transcription services and call recording tools have become widespread. Services like Otter.ai, Fireflies.ai, and built-in transcription features in platforms like Zoom and Microsoft Teams can automatically record and transcribe phone calls.
In Arizona, using these tools follows the same one-party consent rules as any other recording method. If you are a party to the call, you can use an AI tool to record and transcribe it without notifying the other participants. However, if the call involves participants in two-party consent states, you should notify all participants before activating AI recording or transcription features.
Some AI tools join calls as a separate "participant" (appearing as a bot). While this does not change the legal analysis in Arizona, it may alert the other party to the recording. Review the settings of any AI transcription tool to understand how it appears to other call participants.
Arizona 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 Arizona Recording Laws
More Arizona Recording Topics
More Arizona Laws
- Arizona AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Arizona Dashcam Laws
- Arizona Data Privacy Laws
- Arizona Deepfake Laws
- Arizona Employee Monitoring Laws
- Arizona GPS Tracking Laws
- Arizona Police Bodycam Laws
- Arizona Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to record a phone call in Arizona without telling the other person?
Yes. Arizona is a one-party consent state under ARS 13-3005. You can record any phone call you participate in without informing or getting permission from the other person on the line.
Can the owner of a phone line record calls in Arizona?
No, not simply by owning the line. Arizona's one-party consent law under ARS 13-3005, and its exemption at ARS 13-3012(9), requires that a party to the call, or a person present during it, consent to the recording. Businesses can still record calls on company phone systems when the employee on the call, who is a party to it, consents.
Can I record a phone call from Arizona to someone in California?
You should inform the California participant before recording. California is an all-party consent state, and the California Supreme Court has applied California law, going forward, to protect California callers recorded from another state (Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 2006); which law governs is decided case by case. Recording without the California participant's consent could expose you to liability under California Penal Code 632.
Can my employer record my work phone calls in Arizona?
Yes, in most cases. Under Arizona's one-party consent law, your employer can record calls made on company phone lines when the employee on the call, who is a party to it, consents to the recording. Many employers also implement recorded announcements as a courtesy.
What is the penalty for illegally recording a phone call in Arizona?
Illegally recording a phone call is a Class 5 felony under ARS 13-3005, punishable by 0.5 to 2.5 years in prison with a presumptive term of 1.5 years if prison is imposed, plus fines up to $150,000. Prison is not automatic; first-time non-dangerous offenders are generally probation eligible. Repeat offenders face sentences up to 7.5 years.
Updates
Clarified that in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney the California Supreme Court applied California law only going forward and Georgia law to past recordings.
We corrected the claim that Arizona matches federal law (Arizona also lets a present non-party consent, which federal law does not), added Nevada and Delaware to the all-party table, replaced an unsupported "stricter law applies" rule with the case-by-case reality, removed an unsupported inadmissibility rule, added Arizona's civil damages statute, clarified that prison is not automatic, and fixed the search description.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the citation title for ARS 13-3012 (its actual heading is 'Exemptions,' not 'Admissibility of Intercepted Communications') and replaced a dead, mislabeled Rules-of-Evidence citation with a link to the Arizona Supreme Court's rules portal.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Removed a fabricated "telephone line owner" recording exception that doesn't exist in ARS 13-3005 or 13-3012; corrected the page to reflect Arizona's actual one-party consent rule (a party to the call, or a person present during it, must consent).
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.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13 (Criminal Code), Chapter 30 (EAVESDROPPING AND COMMUNICATIONS)
§ 13-3005Interception of wire, electronic and oral communications; installation of pen register or trap and trace device; classification; exceptionsIn forcecited in 23 of our articles
A. Except as provided in this section and section 13-3012, a person is guilty of a class 5 felony who either: 1. Intentionally intercepts a wire or electronic communication to which he is not a party, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of either a sender or receiver thereof. 2. Intentionally intercepts a conversation or discussion at which he is not present, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of a party to such conversation or discussion. 3. Intentionally intercepts the deliberations of a jury or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do. B. Except as provided in sections 13-3012 and 13-3017, a person who intentionally and without lawful authority installs or uses a pen register or trap and trace device on the telephone lines or communications facilities of another person which are utilized for wire or electronic communication is guilty of a class 6 felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Morrison (2002) held that 13-3005 criminalizes unlawful interception but provides no exclusionary remedy, so a recording made in violation of it is not automatically inadmissible. State v. Hauss (1984) held the section inapplicable to a police station interview room talk where no reasonable expectation of privacy existed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Morrison (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2002, 203 Ariz. 489)“…ause it was made without his or her consent in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3005 and 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and was, therefo…”
- State v. Hauss (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1984, 142 Ariz. 159)✓Police secretly recorded an arrested suspect's talk with his girlfriend in a station interview room, after telling her the room was being monitored; the court held there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in that setting, so section 13-3005 did not apply.
- State v. Allgood (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1992, 171 Ariz. 522)“…communication.” (Emphasis added.) See also A.R.S. § 13-3005. (penalizing as a class 5 felony interc…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), One-Party Consent States: Complete 2026 Guide, Arizona Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
§ 13-3001DefinitionsIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. "Aural transfer" means a communication containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception. 2. "Child monitoring device" means a device that is capable of transmitting an audio or audiovisual signal and that is installed or used in a residence for child supervision or safety monitoring by any parent, guardian or other responsible person in the person's own residence. 3. "Communication service provider" means any person who is engaged in providing a service that allows its users to send or receive oral, wire or electronic communications or computer services. 4. "Electronic communication" means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature that is transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system but that does not include any of the following: (a) Any wire or oral communication. (b) Any communication made through a tone-only paging device. (c) Any communication from a tracking device. 5.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Ring (Arizona Supreme Court 2001, 200 Ariz. 267)“…ce ¶ 14 The collection of wiretap evidence is governed by A.R.S. §§ 13-3001 13-3019. Defendant argues that, becaus…”
- State v. Politte (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1982, 136 Ariz. 117)“…ve” than the federal law. He contends the Arizona statutes, A.R.S. §§ 13-3001, et seq., principally § 13-3010, are le…”
- State of Arizona v. Usef Latrice Simmons II (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2015, 238 Ariz. 503)“…een the point of origin and the point of reception . . . .” A.R.S. § 13-3001(14). 5“‘Electronic communication…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Audio Recording Laws: Complete Guide to Consent Rules, Arizona Surveillance Camera Laws: Video and Audio (2027)
§ 13-3012ExemptionsIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
The following are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: 1. The interception of wire, electronic or oral communications, the installation and operation of a pen register or trap and trace device, the providing of information, facilities or technical assistance to an investigative or law enforcement officer pursuant to a subpoena or an ex parte order granted pursuant to sections 13-3010, 13-3015, 13-3016, 13-3017 and 13-3018 or an emergency interception made in good faith pursuant to section 13-3015, including any of the foregoing acts by a communication service provider or its officers, agents or employees. 2. The normal use of services, equipment and facilities that are provided by a communication service provider pursuant to tariffs that are on file with the Arizona corporation commission or the federal communications commission and the normal functions of any operator of a switchboard. 3.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Walker (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1995, 185 Ariz. 228)“…ith the consent of one of the participants—is authorized by AR.S. section 13-3012(9) (Supp.1995). In State v. Allg…”
- State v. Morrison (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2002, 203 Ariz. 489)“…onsent to such interception ....” See also A.R.S. § 13-3012(9) (1997) (exempting from A.R.S. § 13-3…”
- State v. Pecina (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1995, 184 Ariz. 238)“…751 , 91 S.Ct. 1122, 1126 , 28 L.Ed.2d 453 (1971); A.R.S. § 13-3012(7). The state bears the burden of provi…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Employee Monitoring Laws (2026): Workplace Privacy Rules, Arizona Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13 (Criminal Code), Chapter 7 (SENTENCING AND IMPRISONMENT)
§ 13-701Sentence of imprisonment for felony; presentence report; aggravating and mitigating factors; consecutive terms of imprisonment; definitionIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. A sentence of imprisonment for a felony shall be a definite term of years and the person sentenced, unless otherwise provided by law, shall be committed to the custody of the state department of corrections. B. No prisoner may be transferred to the custody of the state department of corrections without a certified copy of the judgment and sentence, signed by the sentencing judge, and a copy of a recent presentence investigation report unless the court has waived preparation of the report. C.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 400 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Tarango (Arizona Supreme Court 1996, 185 Ariz. 208)“…shes between terms of imprisonment and release eligibility. A.R.S. § 13-701(0 provides 1 terms of imprisonment for…”
- State v. Eagle (Arizona Supreme Court 2000, 196 Ariz. 188)“…t for five years and the latter for two and one-half years. A.R.S. § 13-701; see also A.R.S. § 13-604 (increasing…”
- State v. Bartlett (Arizona Supreme Court 1992, 171 Ariz. 302)“…ctions that Defendant be sentenced as a class 2 felon under A.R.S. §§ 13-701 and 13-702. 164 Ariz. at 241 , 792…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Pepper Spray and Stun Gun Laws (2026)
§ 13-702First time felony offenders; sentencing; definitionIn forcecited in 16 of our articles
A. Unless a specific sentence is otherwise provided, the term of imprisonment for a first felony offense shall be the presumptive sentence determined pursuant to subsection D of this section. Except for those felonies involving a dangerous offense or if a specific sentence is otherwise provided, the court may increase or reduce the presumptive sentence within the ranges set by subsection D of this section. Any reduction or increase shall be based on the aggravating and mitigating circumstances listed in section 13-701, subsections D and E and shall be within the ranges prescribed in subsection D of this section. B.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-04 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 446 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Shattuck (Arizona Supreme Court 1984, 140 Ariz. 582)“…ly under the authority of the language in what is currently A.R.S. § 13-702(D)(11) [formerly A.R.S. 13-702(D)(9)] —…”
- State v. Henderson (Arizona Supreme Court 2005, 210 Ariz. 561)“…t fit within the list of statutory aggravators codified in A.R.S. § 13-702.C: infliction or thr…”
- State v. Walton (Arizona Supreme Court 1989, 159 Ariz. 571)“…he Arizona death penalty statute. Under the provisions of A.R.S. § 13-702(D), which applies to noncapital sentenc…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Hit and Run Laws: Penalties and What to Do, Arizona Surreptitious Recording & Voyeurism Laws: ARS 13-3019 Penalties (2026), Arizona Age of Consent Laws: Statutes, Penalties and Reporting
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: Massachusetts Phone Call Recording Laws, Montana Recording Laws (2026): Announcement Exception and Penalties, Montana Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (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)
§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 130 of our articles
Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 860 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walker v. Darby (1990) held a 2520 plaintiff need not prove the contents of intercepted conversations, only interception and a justified expectation against it. Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) barred 2520 damages against defendants who took no part in the interception, obtained the tape lawfully, and disclosed a matter of public concern.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573)✓A postal letter carrier said three supervisors wired an intercom near his workstation to listen in. Reversing summary judgment, the Eleventh Circuit held a section 2520 plaintiff can show interception without proving the contents of specific conversations.
- Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41)“…disclosure, or use is entitled to recover civil damages, 18 U. S. C. § 2520 . Title III also bars the use as eviden…”
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)“…7 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(4), or alternatively, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (a), or alternatively, for violations o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Otter.ai Faces Consolidated Wiretap Class Action Over Its AI Meeting Notetaker and All-Party Consent, Otter.ai Lawsuit: Judge Lets Core Privacy Claims Proceed (2026), Supreme Court Tosses Conviction Over a Secretly Recorded FaceTime Call (2026)
Sources and References
- Arizona Revised Statutes 13-3005 - Interception of Communications(azleg.gov).gov
- Arizona Revised Statutes 13-3001 - Definitions for Wiretapping(azleg.gov).gov
- Arizona Revised Statutes 13-702 - First Time Felony Offenders Sentencing(azleg.gov).gov
- Arizona Revised Statutes 13-701 - Sentencing Aggravating and Mitigating Factors(azleg.gov).gov
- Arizona Revised Statutes 13-3012 - Exemptions(azleg.gov).gov
- Federal Wiretap Act - 18 U.S.C. 2511(law.cornell.edu)
- National Labor Relations Act(nlrb.gov).gov
- Federal Trade Commission Act(ftc.gov).gov