Arkansas
Arkansas Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 7, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Arkansas follows one-party consent for audio recording under Ark. Code Ann. 5-60-120, so any participant in a conversation may record it without notifying the other parties. Violations are a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine.
Arkansas is a one-party consent state for audio recording. Under Ark. Code 5-60-120, you can legally record any conversation you participate in without telling the other parties. This means that as long as you are part of the conversation, you satisfy the consent requirement simply by choosing to record.
This page provides a detailed breakdown of Arkansas audio recording laws, including what the statute covers, the penalties for illegal recording, how recordings are treated as evidence, and the specific exceptions written into the law.
What Is Ark. Code 5-60-120?
Ark. Code 5-60-120 is the primary statute governing the interception and recording of communications in Arkansas. It is located in Title 5, Subtitle 6, Chapter 60 of the Arkansas Code and addresses wire, landline, oral, telephonic, and wireless communications.
The statute makes it unlawful to intercept a wire, landline, oral, telephonic, or wireless communication and to record it or possess a recording of it, unless you are a party to the communication or a party gave prior consent. The statute does not define "intercept"; federal law defines it as acquiring the contents of a communication with a device (18 U.S.C. § 2510(4)).
The One-Party Consent Standard
Under one-party consent, only one participant in a conversation needs to know about and agree to the recording. That participant can be the person doing the recording. You do not need to announce that you are recording, ask for permission, or provide any form of notice to other parties.
This standard applies equally to all forms of audio communication covered by the statute, including face-to-face conversations, telephone calls, and digital voice communications.
How Arkansas Compares to Other States
Arkansas is one of roughly 37 states that follow some form of one-party consent for audio recording. This stands in contrast to all-party consent states such as California, Florida, and Pennsylvania, where every participant in a conversation must agree before recording can begin.
Among its neighbors, Arkansas shares the one-party consent approach with Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas. Mississippi and Louisiana also follow one-party consent rules.
What Communications Does the Law Cover?
Ark. Code 5-60-120 applies broadly to multiple types of audio communications. The statute specifically names the following categories.
Wire Communications
Wire communications include any transmission of voice content carried over a physical wire, cable, or similar connection. This covers traditional landline telephone calls and any communication that travels through a wired infrastructure at some point during transmission.
Oral Communications
Oral communications refer to spoken words exchanged in person. Section 5-60-120 does not define the term. Federal law limits it to conversations where the speaker expects privacy (18 U.S.C. § 2510(2)), and Arkansas courts may read the state statute the same way, but we found no Arkansas decision saying so. Do not assume a conversation you are not part of is unprotected just because it happens in public.
Telephonic and Wireless Communications
The statute also covers telephonic and wireless communications, which include cell phone calls, satellite phone calls, and other voice transmissions carried over wireless networks. This category has grown increasingly important as wireless communication has become the dominant form of telephone use.
Digital and VoIP Communications
Section 5-60-120 covers wire, telephonic, and wireless communications, and its wording is broad enough to reach internet calls made through Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, FaceTime, and similar platforms, although we found no Arkansas court decision on that point. If you are a participant in the call, you can record it.
Exceptions Written Into the Statute
Ark. Code 5-60-120 contains several explicit exceptions that allow certain types of interception without meeting the standard consent requirement.
Law Enforcement Exception
Section 5-60-120(c)(1) says it is not unlawful for the act to be committed by a person acting under color of law. Phone companies that provide technical help to those officials are also exempt under § 5-60-120(c)(2).
Amateur Radio and Police Scanner Exception
The statute exempts FCC-licensed amateur radio operators who intercept communications as part of their licensed activity. It also exempts individuals who use police scanners to monitor publicly broadcast communications for personal use. These exceptions recognize that certain radio frequencies are inherently public and that intercepting them does not violate privacy expectations.
Consent of One Party
The broadest and most commonly invoked exception is the consent of one party. If you are a participant in the conversation, your own consent satisfies the legal requirement. This is what makes Arkansas a one-party consent state rather than requiring all parties to agree.
Criminal Penalties for Illegal Audio Recording
Violating Ark. Code 5-60-120 by recording a conversation without the consent of any party is a criminal offense in Arkansas. The penalties are defined by the state's sentencing guidelines.
Class A Misdemeanor
Illegal interception or recording of communications is classified as a Class A misdemeanor under Arkansas law. Sentencing guidelines for Class A misdemeanors are set by Ark. Code 5-4-401 for jail time and Ark. Code 5-4-201 for fines.
| Penalty | Maximum |
|---|---|
| Jail time | Up to 1 year |
| Fine | Up to $2,500 |
A conviction for a Class A misdemeanor becomes part of your permanent criminal record and can affect employment, housing, and professional licensing.
Federal Penalties
In addition to Arkansas state law, the federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2511) also prohibits the unauthorized interception of communications. Federal violations can result in up to five years in federal prison. Both state and federal law may apply to the same conduct, meaning a single act of illegal recording could lead to prosecution under both systems.
Civil Liability for Illegal Recording
Beyond criminal penalties, a person who is illegally recorded in Arkansas may pursue civil remedies against the person who made the recording.
State Civil Claims
Important: Arkansas Chapter 60 (the eavesdropping chapter including § 5-60-120) is criminal-only. There is no Arkansas statutory civil cause of action for an ordinary § 5-60-120 interception, unlike states such as California that have parallel civil statutes, so civil plaintiffs in Arkansas usually route through federal or common-law theories. One narrow exception came in 2025: Act 597 of 2025 lets an owner or tenant of private property sue a person who used a drone in violation of § 5-60-103 to capture an "image" of the property, or of the owner or tenant while on it with a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the act defines "image" to include captured sound waves. It sets damages of $5,000 per episode of capture or $10,000 per episode of disclosure or use, plus court costs and attorney's fees. Arkansas's general civil action for crime victims, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-118-107, covers only conduct that would be a felony, so it does not reach a § 5-60-120 violation, which is a misdemeanor.
Victims of illegal recording may pursue civil claims under:
- Federal ECPA (18 U.S.C. § 2520): The primary civil remedy. A court may award the greater of actual damages or statutory damages of $100 a day or $10,000, plus punitive damages in appropriate cases and attorney fees; the statutory award is discretionary.
- Arkansas common-law invasion of privacy: Dunlap v. McCarty, 284 Ark. 5, 678 S.W.2d 361 (1984), listed intrusion upon a plaintiff's solitude or seclusion as one of four actionable kinds of invasion of privacy and pointed to the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B illustrations, which include a detective wiretapping the plaintiff's phones. The court did not decide whether the phone calls in that case stated an intrusion claim; it reversed because a claim for spoken words fell under Arkansas's one-year limitations period.
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress: Available for extreme and outrageous conduct causing severe distress.
Federal Civil Remedies
The federal Wiretap Act provides a private right of action under 18 U.S.C. 2520. A person whose communications are illegally intercepted can sue for:
- The greater of actual damages or statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, at the court's discretion
- Punitive damages in appropriate cases
- Reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs
These federal civil remedies exist independently of any criminal prosecution and independently of any state civil claims.
Recording in Public vs. Private Spaces
The distinction between public and private spaces is critical to understanding when audio recording is legal in Arkansas.
Public Spaces
In public places, you can generally record what is in public view and any conversation you take part in. Public places include:
- Public streets, sidewalks, and parks
- Government buildings open to the public
- Public transportation
- Retail stores and restaurants (common areas)
- Outdoor events and gatherings
Recording other people's conversations that you are not part of is riskier, even in these places. Section 5-60-120 bars intercepting and recording an oral communication without a party's consent, it does not define "oral communication," and no Arkansas court we found has said that conversations in public fall outside it. Federal law protects only conversations where the speakers expect privacy, and Arkansas courts may read the state law the same way, but that is not settled.
Private Spaces
In private spaces such as homes, offices, medical facilities, and other areas where people reasonably expect privacy, the one-party consent rule applies in full. You must be a participant in the conversation to record it legally. If you are not part of the conversation, you need the consent of at least one participant.
Placing a hidden recording device in a private space to capture conversations you are not part of is illegal under Ark. Code 5-60-120, regardless of whether you own the property.
Recording Technology and Arkansas Law
Arkansas audio recording law applies regardless of the technology used. Section 5-60-120 does not limit itself to any particular kind of device.
Smartphones and Voice Recorders
Using a smartphone's built-in recording app or a dedicated digital voice recorder to capture a conversation you participate in is legal under one-party consent. The form of the recording device does not change the legal analysis.
Wearable Recording Devices
Wearable devices such as AI voice recorders (like Plaud), smart watches with recording capability, and clip-on microphones are all covered by the same one-party consent framework. If you are participating in the conversation, you can use any of these devices to record it.
Smart Speakers and Always-On Devices
Devices like Amazon Echo, Google Home, and Apple HomePod raise unique questions under recording law. These devices are designed to listen continuously for a wake word. When they capture audio beyond the wake word, including fragments of nearby conversations, the legal implications under Ark. Code 5-60-120 remain an evolving area. Users should be aware that the presence of these devices in a room could create questions about consent and interception.
Using Audio Recordings as Evidence in Arkansas
One of the most common reasons people record conversations is to preserve evidence for legal proceedings. Arkansas courts generally accept legally obtained recordings as evidence, but several requirements must be met.
Authentication
The party offering the recording must establish that it is authentic and has not been altered. This typically requires testimony from the person who made the recording or from an expert who can verify the recording's integrity. Digital recordings should be preserved in their original format whenever possible.
Relevance
The recording must be relevant to a matter at issue in the case. A court will exclude a recording that has no bearing on the claims or defenses being litigated, regardless of how it was obtained.
Hearsay Considerations
Statements captured in a recording may be subject to hearsay objections. However, several exceptions commonly apply. A statement by a party opponent is not hearsay under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2). Excited utterances, present sense impressions, and other recognized exceptions may also allow recorded statements into evidence.
Illegally Obtained Recordings
Arkansas's recording statute does not say whether an illegal recording can be used in court. Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 2515, bars using the contents of a phone call or private conversation intercepted in violation of the federal Wiretap Act as evidence in any state or federal proceeding, civil or criminal. The person who made an illegal recording may also face criminal charges and civil liability.
Interstate and Cross-Border Recording
When you are in Arkansas and recording a conversation with someone in another state, the legal analysis becomes more complex.
Which State's Law Applies?
There is no single rule for a recorded conversation between people in different states. Courts decide case by case: some apply the law of the state where the recording was made, and some have applied the stricter state's law. If you are in Arkansas (one-party consent) and the other party is in California (all-party consent), California law may govern the recording.
States Requiring All-Party Consent
If you regularly record calls with people in the following states, get everyone's consent first:
- California
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Florida
- Illinois
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Montana
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- Pennsylvania
- Washington
Connecticut and Nevada apply their all-party rule to phone calls, and Delaware's two recording statutes conflict, so treat it as all-party. Oregon requires everyone's consent for in-person conversations but not for phone calls.
Best Practice for Interstate Calls
The safest approach for recording interstate calls is to inform all parties and obtain consent. Before that conversation, our recording consent checker can set Arkansas's rule beside the other state's rule. This avoids the risk of violating a stricter state's recording law, whichever state's law a court applies.
Specific Audio Recording Scenarios
Recording at Home
You can record conversations in your own home when you are present and participating. You cannot plant a recording device and leave the room to capture conversations between other people who are in your home. Even though you own the property, the consent requirement applies to the conversation, not the location.
Recording Phone Calls
All phone calls, including landline, cell phone, and VoIP calls, are covered by one-party consent. You can record any call you are on without telling the other party. For detailed information, see our page on Arkansas phone call recording laws.
Recording Meetings
You can record conversations you take part in at any meeting you attend in person, whether it is a business meeting, a neighborhood association gathering, or a parent-teacher conference. Being a party to the conversation, not merely being in the room, is what satisfies the one-party consent requirement.
Recording for Journalism
Journalists in Arkansas benefit from the same one-party consent rules as everyone else. A reporter who participates in a conversation can record it without informing the other party. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press provides additional guidance on recording rights specific to journalists in Arkansas.
Federal Wiretap Law and How It Interacts with Arkansas Law
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2511) establishes a nationwide baseline for recording law. Federal law follows a one-party consent model, which aligns with Arkansas state law.
Because federal law sets a floor rather than a ceiling, states can impose stricter requirements but cannot be more permissive than the federal standard. Since Arkansas and the federal government both follow one-party consent, there is no conflict between the two systems for recordings made entirely within Arkansas.
However, if a recording involves parties in multiple states, both the relevant state laws and federal law may apply. Federal prosecution is relatively rare for simple recording violations but can occur in cases involving organized interception schemes or recordings made in connection with other federal crimes.
2025 Legislative Update
In 2025, the Arkansas General Assembly enacted Act 600 (formerly HB1641), amending the harassment statute (Ark. Code Ann. § 5-71-208) to criminalize non-consensual electronic tracking.
More significantly for audio privacy, Arkansas enacted Act 827 of 2025 (HB 1529), creating Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-139, the state's first comprehensive deepfake statute, signed by Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders on April 17, 2025. Section 5-14-139 targets synthetic intimate images rather than audio interception, and Act 827 also created a separate civil action, codified as enacted at § 16-118-119 (Act 597 of 2025 enacted a different section under the same number), for people injured by a violation of § 5-14-139 (distinct from the criminal-only Chapter 60 framework).
At the federal level, the TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. No. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) criminalizes knowing publication of NCII including AI deepfakes, with a 48-hour takedown duty for covered platforms effective May 19, 2026.
No amendments to Ark. Code § 5-60-120 itself were enacted. The core one-party consent framework for audio recording remains unchanged.
Explore More Arkansas Recording Law Topics
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism Laws | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | School Recording | Medical Recording
Back to Arkansas Recording Laws
More Arkansas Recording Topics
More Arkansas Laws
- Arkansas AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Arkansas Dashcam Laws
- Arkansas Data Privacy Laws
- Arkansas Deepfake Laws
- Arkansas Employee Monitoring Laws
- Arkansas GPS Tracking Laws
- Arkansas Police Bodycam Laws
- Arkansas Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to record a conversation in Arkansas without the other person knowing?
Yes. Arkansas is a one-party consent state under Ark. Code 5-60-120. As long as you are a participant in the conversation, you can record it without informing or obtaining permission from the other parties.
What are the penalties for illegally recording someone in Arkansas?
Illegal recording under Ark. Code 5-60-120 is a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500. Federal wiretap violations under 18 U.S.C. 2511 can carry up to five years in prison.
Can I use a recording as evidence in an Arkansas court?
Yes, if the recording was made legally under one-party consent. The recording must be authenticated, relevant to the case, and comply with hearsay rules. Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 2515, bars recordings intercepted in violation of the federal Wiretap Act from evidence in state and federal courts.
Does Arkansas one-party consent apply to VoIP calls like Zoom or Teams?
Very likely. Section 5-60-120 covers wire, telephonic, and wireless communications, and its wording is broad enough to reach VoIP platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and FaceTime, although we found no Arkansas court decision on that point. If you are a participant in the call, you can record it.
Can I record a conversation in Arkansas if I am calling someone in a two-party consent state?
It depends on which state's law a court applies, and courts decide that case by case; some apply the law of the state where the recording was made and some apply the stricter state's law. If the other party is in a state that requires all-party consent, such as California or Florida, the safe course is to get consent from everyone on the call.
Updates
We removed a definition of "intercept" that Arkansas's statute does not contain, corrected advice that suggested you can record other people's conversations in public without consent, completed the list of all-party consent states (adding Nevada and Delaware), described federal Wiretap Act damages as discretionary, corrected the rules on using illegal recordings as evidence, and clarified that courts decide case by case which state's law governs an interstate call. Narrowed the statement that Arkansas has no statutory civil action for recording (a 2025 drone law creates one), noted the shared § 16-118-119 number, and clarified that one-party consent covers conversations you take part in, not every conversation in a meeting room.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Corrected the description of Dunlap v. McCarty (Ark. 1984) to what the court actually said about intrusion upon seclusion and its limitations-based reversal.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Spoke propagation: Swapped all Justia Arkansas statute links to primary arkleg.state.ar.us sources. Clarified that Ark. Code Chapter 60 (§ 5-60-120) is criminal-only with NO parallel Arkansas statutory civil cause of action; civil plaintiffs must route to federal ECPA § 2520 (discretionary statutory damages of $100/day or $10,000) and Arkansas common-law intrusion upon seclusion (described in Dunlap v. McCarty, 284 Ark. 5, 678 S.W.2d 361 (1984), as one of four actionable kinds of invasion of privacy). Updated 2025 Legislative Update to add § 5-14-139 (HB 1529 / Act 827 of 2025, signed Gov. Sanders April 17, 2025), Arkansas first [deepfake](/us-laws/deepfake-laws) statute, with a companion civil action at § 16-118-119. Added TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. No. 119-12, May 19, 2025) federal overlay for NCII and AI deepfakes.
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.
Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated
§ 5-60-120Interception and recording.In forcecited in 18 of our articles
(a) It is unlawful for a person to intercept a wire, landline, oral, telephonic communication, or wireless communication, and to record or possess a recording of the communication unless the person is a party to the communication or one (1) of the parties to the communication has given prior…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at arkleg.state.ar.us
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Lewis v. State (1999) applied Section 5-60-120(a) to a man who taped his ex-wife's calls without being a party or having consent, affirming revocation. Elliott v. State (1998) held that while such recording by a private citizen is unlawful, the statute does not bar the tape from evidence.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lewis v. State (Supreme Court of Arkansas 1999, 336 Ark. 469)✓A man on probation admitted attaching a recorder to the telephone box outside his ex-wife's house and taping her calls; the court found that violated Section 5-60-120(a) because he was not a party and no party consented, and affirmed the revocation.
- Opinion No. (Arkansas Attorney General Reports 1998)“…consented to the recording. This provision is set forth in A.C.A. § 5-60-120 , as follows: 5-60-120 . Interceptio…”
- King v. State (Supreme Court of Arkansas 2019, 571 S.W.3d 476)✓A friend's phone app secretly recorded a murder suspect's call with a detective; the court held that although Section 5-60-120 makes such a recording by a non-party unlawful, it does not bar admissibility, and affirmed the refusal to exclude the tape.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arkansas Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Arkansas Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Arkansas Dashcam Laws: Mounting, Audio, and Legal Uses (2026)
§ 5-14-139Unlawful creation or distribution of deepfake visual material.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
(a) As used in this section: (1) "Deepfake visual material" means a photograph, image, video, or other visual depiction that: (A) Appears to an ordinary person to be an authentic depiction of an identifiable person; and (B) Is generated, modified, or adapted using technology to falsely depict
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at arkleg.state.ar.us
Also relied on in: Arkansas Video Recording Laws: Public Filming, Private Property, and Consent (2026), Arkansas Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Defenses (2026), Arkansas AI Laws and Regulation (2026)
§ 5-4-201Fines — Limitations on amount.In forcecited in 14 of our articles
(a) A defendant convicted of a felony may be sentenced to pay a fine: (1) Not exceeding fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) if the conviction is of a Class A felony or Class B felony; (2) Not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) if the conviction is of a Class C felony or Class D felony;…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2020-11-06 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 42 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jim Ray, Inc. v. Williams (Court of Appeals of Arkansas 2007, 99 Ark. App. 315)“…Trade Practices Act. Ark.Code Ann. § 4-88-103 (Repl. 2001); Ark.Code Ann. § 5-4-201(b)(1) (Repl.2006). The Act also provide…”
- Wooten v. State (Court of Appeals of Arkansas 2005, 93 Ark. App. 178)“…a $1000 fine and a jail term not to exceed one year. See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-4-201 (b)(1) and 5-4-401(b)(1) (Repl. 1997).…”
- Morris v. State (Supreme Court of Arkansas 2017, 518 S.W.3d 70)“…fine for a Class C misdemeanor is not to exceed $500. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-201(b)(3) (Repl. 2013). The Arkans…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arkansas Age of Consent Laws: Statutes, Penalties and Reporting, Arkansas AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Arkansas Assault and Battery Laws: Degrees, Felonies and Penalties
§ 5-4-401Sentence.In forcecited in 18 of our articles
(a) A defendant convicted of a felony shall receive a determinate sentence according to the following limitations: (1) For a Class Y felony, the sentence shall be not less than ten (10) years and not more than forty (40) years, or life; (2) For a Class A felony, the sentence shall be not less…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2020-11-06 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 248 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Radford v. State (Court of Appeals of Arkansas 2018, 538 S.W.3d 894)“…r a Class B felony is five to twenty years' imprisonment. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401 (a)(3). The final sentencing order tha…”
- Romario Waller v. State of Arkansas (Supreme Court of Arkansas 2020, 2020 Ark. 381)“…onment for first-degree murder is not illegal on its face. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(1) (Repl. 1993). Moreover, this cour…”
- James Sherwood Edwards v. State of Arkansas (Court of Appeals of Arkansas 2024, 2024 Ark. App. 431)“…nge for Class D felony at not more than fifteen years) with Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(a)(2) (Repl. 2013) (setting sentencing…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: How Many Years for First Degree Murder?, Arkansas Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules (2026), Arkansas Disorderly Conduct Laws: Penalties, Trespass and Purple Paint
§ 5-71-208Harassment.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
(a) A person commits the offense of harassment if : (1) With purpose to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, without good cause, he or she: (A) Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches a person, subjects that person to offensive physical contact or attempts or threatens to do so; (B)
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-26 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at arkleg.state.ar.us
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Arkansas courts have construed section 5-71-208 in both directions. Rose v. State (2018) affirmed a harassment conviction for offensive touching, inferring purpose to harass from the circumstances, and Hunt v. State (2005) reversed an adjudication because obscene remarks were not shown likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bates v. Bates (Supreme Court of Arkansas 1990, 303 Ark. 89)“…ault, Ark.Code Ann. §§ 5-13-204 to -207 (1987); harassment, Ark.Code Ann. § 5-71-208 (1987); harassing communications, Ark.C…”
- Potter v. State (Supreme Court of Arkansas 2000, 342 Ark. 621)✓A woman reported that a man had followed her for weeks and was parked near her in a park; the court treated reasonable suspicion of stalking or of harassment carrying danger of forcible injury as enough to justify the stop and frisk, but did not construe the harassment section.
- Rose v. State (Court of Appeals of Arkansas 2018, 558 S.W.3d 415)✓A man grabbed a woman's breast in a convenience store and pulled out a realistic BB gun when she objected; the court affirmed his harassment conviction under section 5-71-208(a)(1) and (4), holding the jury could infer his purpose to harass or alarm from the circumstances.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arkansas Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits (2026), Arkansas Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Privacy Rules (2026), Arkansas GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (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 an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Can I Record My Boss Harassing Me? State-by-State Legal Guide (2026), Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?
§ 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: Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026), How to Detect and Block Listening Devices in Your Home (2026), Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026)
Sources and References
- Ark. Code 5-60-120 - Interception and Recording(law.justia.com)
- Ark. Code 5-4-401 - Sentencing for Misdemeanors and Felonies(law.justia.com)
- Ark. Code 5-4-201 - Fines and Limitations on Amount(law.justia.com)
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. 2520 - Civil Remedies for Wiretap Violations(law.cornell.edu)
- Act 600 of 2025 - Tracking Device Harassment Amendment(arkleg.state.ar.us).gov
- Arkansas Freedom of Information Act - Attorney General(arkansasag.gov).gov
- Arkansas Reporters Recording Guide - RCFP(rcfp.org)
- Arkansas General Assembly - Legislative Session Information(arkleg.state.ar.us).gov
- Ark. Code 5-60-120 - Interception and Recording(arkleg.state.ar.us).gov
- Ark. Code 5-4-401 - Sentencing for Misdemeanors and Felonies(arkleg.state.ar.us).gov
- Ark. Code 5-4-201 - Fines and Limitations on Amount(arkleg.state.ar.us).gov