EnglishEspañol
Maine flag

Maine

Maine Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits (2026)

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

Maine Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits (2026)

Updates

We clarified that under Riley v. California the warrant problem is searching a phone, not briefly securing it, and that 15 M.R.S. 57 is a narrow body-camera rule.

Corrected what police may do with your phone (they generally need a warrant to search it but may hold it while they get one), noted that an officer may order filming stopped when it is interfering with police duties (Gericke v. Begin), removed an unsupported claim that Maine has the strongest right-to-record protections in the country, and added Maine's no-knock warrant body-camera rule. We corrected the section on orders to stop recording to state the First Circuit's actual test (an officer may order a stop when he can reasonably conclude the filming is interfering or about to interfere, and reasonable safety and time, place, and manner limits apply), softened an unsupported flat statement that officers can never demand deletion of footage, and fixed the traffic-stop bullet to match.

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

Corrected the description of Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins to the holding the First Circuit actually reached: protection for secret audio recording of police officers performing their official duties in public, not all public officials.

Corrected a fabricated body-worn-camera statute citation: Maine has no statewide law requiring police body cameras (a 2019 bill, LD 636, did not pass), and agency policy under 25 M.R.S. section 2803-B governs instead. Also replaced a dead case-law citation link with a working one from the First Circuit's own opinion archive.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Corrected the citation for Maine's one-party consent rule as it applies to recording police: it derives from 15 M.R.S.A. section 709's definition of "intercept" (which excludes a party to the communication), not from section 712, whose four exceptions cover only carriers, law enforcement, and jail officials.

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Added Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020) -- extends Glik to secret audio recording of police officers discharging their official duties in public spaces. Corrected the body-worn camera discussion: Maine has no general statewide body-camera statute (LD 636 died as a study resolve in 2020); law-enforcement policy requirements run through 25 M.R.S. section 2803-B. Updated KeyTakeaways to surface Rollins prominently.

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Sources and References

  1. 15 M.R.S.A. section 710 - Interception of Communications (Maine Legislature)(legislature.maine.gov).gov
  2. 15 M.R.S.A. section 712 - Exceptions (Communication Carriers & Investigative Officers) (Maine Legislature)(legislature.maine.gov).gov
  3. Maine Attorney General's Office(maine.gov).gov
  4. 25 M.R.S. section 2803-B - Law Enforcement Agency Policies (Written Directives) (Maine Legislature)(legislature.maine.gov).gov
  5. Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020) - Secret audio recording of public officials (U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit opinion archive)(media.ca1.uscourts.gov).gov
  6. 1 M.R.S.A. section 402 - Freedom of Access Act (Maine Legislature)(legislature.maine.gov).gov
  7. U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division(justice.gov).gov
  8. 15 M.R.S.A. section 709 - Definitions (One-Party Consent) (Maine Legislature)(legislature.maine.gov).gov
Share: