Kentucky Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

Kentucky is a one-party consent state under KRS 526.010 and KRS 526.020. A participant in a wire or oral communication, or anyone with at least one party's prior consent, may lawfully record. Surreptitious recording of a conversation to which you are not a party, with no party's consent, is criminal eavesdropping, a Class D felony, and exposes you to a federal civil lawsuit under ECPA.

Kentucky recording law at a glance

See the full analysis starting with Kentucky recording laws in depth below.

Recording in-person conversations in Kentucky

If you are part of a conversation, your participation supplies the required consent under KRS 526.020. You do not need to announce that you are recording, obtain the other party's agreement, or play a beep tone. This covers one-on-one conversations, group meetings you attend, and any exchange in which you are an active participant.

The definition of "eavesdrop" in KRS 526.010 controls the analysis: it means overhearing, recording, amplifying, or transmitting any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one party. The phrase "of others" and the one-party carve-out together place a participant outside the offense entirely.

Kentucky's "oral communication" concept imports a justified expectation that the communication is not subject to interception. A sidewalk exchange, a courthouse hallway conversation, or anything said loudly in a public market likely carries no such expectation. A conversation behind a closed office door, in a private home, or in a doctor's exam room does.

What you cannot do is plant a recorder and walk away to capture a conversation between others who have not consented. That conduct is exactly what KRS 526.020 punishes as a Class D felony.

Recording phone calls in Kentucky

The one-party rule applies equally to phone calls. If you are on the call, you can record it without disclosure, regardless of whether the other party knows. The rule covers landlines, mobile phones, and internet-based services such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet. The medium does not change the analysis.

Federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. section 2511(2)(d) mirrors Kentucky's floor: a person who is a party to the communication, or who has one party's prior consent, may record unless the interception is for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.

Interstate calls require extra attention. ECPA does not preempt stricter state law. When a Kentucky caller is on the line with someone in an all-party consent state, the stricter state's rule applies from its end. The all-party states for at least some recording contexts include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. The safe-harbor rule: when calling into any of those states, get every party's consent before recording.

See Kentucky Phone Call Recording Laws for the full call-recording analysis.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Kentucky has no general criminal prohibition on video recording in private spaces. The relevant statutes are sexual-purpose only.

KRS 531.090 (voyeurism, Class A misdemeanor) reaches intentional use of a camera or other imaging device to view, photograph, film, or videotape the sexual conduct, genitals, certain undergarments, or the nipple of the female breast of another person without consent, in a place where a reasonable person would not expect to be observed. The statute is limited to sexual content and sexual-gratification purpose; it does not reach nanny cams, doorbells, or general surveillance cameras capturing arrivals, departures, or package thefts.

KRS 531.100 (video voyeurism, Class D felony) upgrades the KRS 531.090 conduct where the actor records the sexual content for consideration or distributes it via any electronic or digital medium. Distribution upgrades what would be a misdemeanor to a felony carrying 1 to 5 years in prison.

An audio caveat applies to all camera systems: a Ring doorbell, nanny cam, or business IP camera that captures audio is also a recording device under KRS 526.020. Audio recorded while the homeowner or business owner is present and a party to the conversation is covered by one-party consent. Audio captured of conversations among others when no consenting party is present is potential eavesdropping exposure, even if the video is lawful.

The FTC's May 2023 settlement with Ring required $5.8 million in consumer redress and ongoing privacy-program injunctive relief, based on findings that Ring gave employees and contractors access to customer video without adequate consent. That federal consumer-protection overlay applies to Kentucky consumers using Ring or similar smart cameras.

See Kentucky Security Camera Laws and Kentucky Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws for deeper coverage.

Penalties for illegal recording in Kentucky

The Chapter 526 penalty structure is short but was historically misreported (the eavesdropping install and possession statutes were inverted on the prior version of this page). The corrected mapping:

Sentencing anchors come from outside Chapter 526. Class D felony imprisonment of 1 to 5 years is set by KRS 532.060(2)(d); the $1,000 to $10,000 fine range is set by KRS 534.030(1). Class A misdemeanor exposure of up to 12 months and a fine up to $500 comes from KRS 532.090 and KRS 534.040.

KRS 526.080 provides for forfeiture only. Any device used in violation of Chapter 526 is forfeited to the state under KRS 500.090. KRS 526.080 creates no civil damages remedy.

Kentucky has no state statutory civil cause of action for illegal recording. Civil plaintiffs must route through federal ECPA and Kentucky common law. 18 U.S.C. section 2520 authorizes actual damages, or statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or $10,000 (whichever is greater), plus punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees, and equitable relief. Kentucky common-law invasion of privacy under McCall v. Courier-Journal, 623 S.W.2d 882 (Ky. 1981) supplies the intrusion-upon-seclusion and public-disclosure-of-private-facts claims that fill the gap left by Chapter 526. The typical plaintiff files the federal section 2520 claim and pairs it with a McCall count.

Recording the police in Kentucky

Kentucky sits in the Sixth Circuit, covering Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan, and Ohio. The Sixth Circuit has not issued a published, binding decision recognizing a First Amendment right of citizens to record on-duty police in public.

Crawford v. Geiger, 656 F. App'x 190 (6th Cir. 2016), is the closest in-circuit authority. The case involved plaintiffs who alleged, among other things, a First Amendment right to film police. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on the First Amendment recording claim; the Sixth Circuit appeal focused on the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims, not the recording right. The decision is unpublished (Federal Appendix) and is persuasive only. It did not recognize or announce a First Amendment right to record police.

Hils v. Davis, 52 F.4th 997 (6th Cir. 2022), is officer-context only. The court held that Cincinnati police officers have no First Amendment right to record their own internal misconduct interviews. The opinion does not address civilian recording of police in public and should not be read as limiting it.

Out-of-circuit consensus runs in favor of the right. Multiple circuits, including the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh, recognize a First Amendment interest in recording on-duty police in public, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner constraints.

In practice: a Kentucky civilian recording police in public from a reasonable distance, without interfering with officer duties, and complying with lawful orders to step back, has a strong merits position. Any resulting Section 1983 claim will face a qualified-immunity challenge because the right is not clearly established by published Sixth Circuit authority.

Body-worn cameras are governed by KRS 61.168 within the Open Records Act family. Agencies must disclose footage depicting use of force, detention or arrest, or the substance of a formal complaint against an officer (subsection (5)), but may withhold footage from private residences, medical facilities, involving minors, and other enumerated categories (subsection (4)). Public meetings may generally be recorded under the Kentucky Open Meetings Act at KRS 61.805 through 61.850.

See Kentucky Laws on Recording Police for the full analysis.

Special topics in Kentucky

Workplace recording

Kentucky's one-party consent rule applies at work: an employee who is part of a conversation may record it. This covers HR meetings, performance reviews, disciplinary interviews, and coworker exchanges. What the one-party rule does not do is immunize a no-recording policy from federal labor law. Under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), a blanket workplace no-recording policy is presumptively unlawful under Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA if a reasonable employee could interpret it as chilling Section 7 protected concerted activity. Narrowly drawn rules tied to confidentiality, safety, or HIPAA with Section 7 carve-outs are defensible. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) separately treats undisclosed recording of a collective-bargaining session as a per se Section 8(a)(5) or (b)(3) violation of the duty to bargain in good faith.

See Kentucky Workplace Recording Laws.

AI and deepfake law

Kentucky's first AI-governance enactment is SB 4 of 2025 (Acts Chapter 66, signed March 24, 2025, effective that day under an emergency declaration). It creates KRS 42.731, directing the Commonwealth Office of Technology to establish an AI Governance Committee, adopt ISO/IEC 42001 standards, maintain a registry of generative and high-risk AI systems, and require human validation of AI outputs and public disclaimers in citizen-facing AI decisions. It also creates a civil cause of action in a new section of KRS Chapter 117 for election officers and candidates whose appearance, action, or speech is altered through synthetic media in an electioneering communication. Clear-and-convincing proof required; clear-and-conspicuous disclosure is an affirmative defense.

Kentucky has no general civil or criminal deepfake or AI-NCII statute outside the election context. KRS 531.120 (the 2018 non-consensual intimate imagery statute) lacks express AI language; its application to AI-generated imagery is unsettled. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. No. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) fills the gap for AI-generated NCII: it criminalizes knowing publication of such content and requires covered platforms to remove flagged material within 48 hours, with platform compliance effective May 19, 2026.

Non-consensual intimate imagery

KRS 531.120 prohibits intentional distribution of private erotic matter to a third party without the depicted person's written consent where the actor intends to profit or harm. A first offense is a Class A misdemeanor; a subsequent offense or first offense for profit is a Class D felony; a subsequent offense for profit is a Class C felony. Subsection (3) requires platform operators to remove flagged images on request and bars any removal fee. The TAKE IT DOWN Act supplements KRS 531.120 for AI-generated content.

Federal overlay

18 U.S.C. section 2520 is the principal civil damages vehicle for Kentucky plaintiffs because Chapter 526 has no state equivalent. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) holds that AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial or prerecorded voice" under TCPA and require prior express written consent; this ruling is in force. FCC 24-24 (the one-to-one consent rule) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit on April 30, 2025, and is no longer effective. HIPAA governs recordings in healthcare settings: a covered entity recording a patient encounter requires HIPAA-compliant authorization under 45 C.F.R. sections 164.502 and 164.508 unless a treatment, payment, or operations exception applies. CALEA at 47 U.S.C. sections 1001 to 1010 requires carriers to support lawful interception under court order; it imposes engineering obligations and does not authorize warrantless interception.

Recent legal developments

• March 24, 2025: Governor Beshear signed SB 4 of 2025 (Acts Chapter 66), Kentucky's first AI-governance law, effective immediately. Creates KRS 42.731 (state-agency AI governance) and a new KRS Chapter 117 civil cause of action for synthetic-media electioneering communications.
• May 19, 2025: Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. No. 119-12) signed, criminalizing publication of non-consensual intimate imagery including AI-generated deepfakes. Platform compliance (48-hour notice-and-removal) effective May 19, 2026.
• April 30, 2025: FCC 24-24 (one-to-one TCPA consent rule) vacated by the Eleventh Circuit; mandate issued. Pre-existing TCPA prior-express-written-consent rules govern.
• February 14, 2025: NLRB GC 25-05 rescinded several Biden-era General Counsel memoranda and reinstated Boeing-era prosecutorial posture. Stericycle remains binding Board precedent.

Kentucky recording laws in depth

Want to know more? Each sub-page below covers a specific recording context for Kentucky in depth.

By type of recording

• Kentucky Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
• Kentucky Video Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Legal Limits
• Kentucky Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections
• Kentucky Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use
• Kentucky Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know

By place or relationship

• Kentucky Laws on Recording Police: Your First Amendment Rights
• Kentucky Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Exceptions
• Kentucky Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights
• Kentucky Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Disputes
• Kentucky Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and Healthcare Privacy
• Kentucky School Recording Laws: Student, Parent, and Teacher Rights
• Kentucky Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules

More Kentucky laws

• Kentucky Alimony Laws
• Kentucky At-Will Employment Laws
• Kentucky Child Custody Laws
• Kentucky Data Privacy Laws
• Kentucky Landlord-Tenant Laws

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Recording laws change and apply differently to each situation. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed Kentucky attorney.

More Kentucky Laws

• Kentucky AI Meeting Recording Laws
• Kentucky Alimony Laws
• Kentucky At-Will Employment Laws
• Kentucky Car Accident Laws
• Kentucky Car Seat Laws
• Kentucky Child Custody Laws
• Kentucky Child Support Laws
• Kentucky Common Law Marriage Laws
• Kentucky Data Privacy Laws
• Kentucky Deepfake Laws
• Kentucky Divorce Laws
• Kentucky Dog Bite Laws
• Kentucky Emancipation Laws
• Kentucky Expungement Laws
• Kentucky Hit and Run Laws
• Kentucky Landlord-Tenant Laws