Minnesota Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent and Interstate Rules
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. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Minnesota is a one-party consent state for phone call recording under Minn. Stat. 626A.02, so you can legally record any call you participate in without notifying the other party. This rule covers landline, cell phone, VoIP, and video calls.
Overview of Minnesota Phone Call Recording Laws
Minnesota is a one-party consent state for recording phone calls. Under Minn. Stat. Section 626A.02, you can legally record any phone call you participate in without telling the other person on the line. The law requires consent from only one party to the call, and that party can be the person doing the recording.
This rule applies to every type of phone communication, including traditional landline calls, cell phone conversations, VoIP calls through platforms like Zoom or Microsoft Teams, and video calls with audio. As long as you are an active participant in the call, no notification or announcement is required under Minnesota law.
Minnesota's phone call recording rules are part of the broader wiretapping and electronic surveillance statute found in Minn. Stat. Chapter 626A. This chapter mirrors the federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2522) in its one-party consent approach.
What Minnesota Law Says About Phone Call Recording
The Statutory Framework
Minn. Stat. Section 626A.02 prohibits the intentional interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. Phone calls fall primarily under the "wire communications" category, which covers any transfer of the human voice made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by wire, cable, or other similar connection.
The one-party consent exception in Subdivision 2(d) permits interception when a party to the communication consents, or when someone has prior consent from one of the parties. This exception does not apply if the recording is made for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act.
Types of Phone Calls Covered
The statute applies broadly to all modern forms of telephone communication:
- Traditional landline calls transmitted through copper wire or fiber optic cables
- Cell phone calls transmitted through cellular networks
- VoIP calls made through internet-based services like Vonage, Google Voice, or Skype
- Video calls with audio through platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, FaceTime, and Google Meet
- Conference calls with multiple participants
- Calls through messaging apps like WhatsApp, Signal, or Facebook Messenger
Regardless of the technology used to place or receive the call, the one-party consent rule applies as long as at least one participant consents to the recording.
The Criminal or Tortious Purpose Limitation
Even as a participant in the call, you cannot record if your purpose is to commit a crime or civil wrong. Examples of prohibited purposes include:
- Recording a call to gather information for blackmail or extortion
- Recording to facilitate fraud or identity theft
- Recording as part of a harassment campaign
- Recording to support insider trading or other financial crimes
If a court finds that you recorded a phone call with criminal or tortious intent, the one-party consent exception under Section 626A.02, Subdivision 2(d) does not protect you, and you face both criminal and civil liability.
Recording Cell Phone Calls in Minnesota
Personal Cell Phone Calls
You can record any personal cell phone call in Minnesota as long as you are a participant. There is no requirement to use any specific type of recording equipment. Common methods include:
- Built-in voice recording apps on smartphones
- Third-party call recording applications
- External voice recorders placed near the phone speaker
- Computer software connected to the phone
Minnesota law does not distinguish between recording methods. The legality depends on consent, not the technology used.
Recording Apps and Software
Numerous smartphone apps are designed specifically for call recording. These apps typically work by creating a three-way call with a recording service or by accessing the device's audio system directly. Using these apps in Minnesota is legal when you are a party to the call.
Phone makers handle call recording differently. Apple added built-in call recording in iOS 18.1, and it plays a notice to everyone on the call, while some Android devices limit the feature. These are manufacturer decisions rather than legal requirements. Minnesota law does not restrict the use of call recording technology.
Business Cell Phone Calls
Employees using company cell phones should be aware that their employer may have policies about call recording. While Minnesota's one-party consent law permits recording, workplace policies may prohibit it. Violating company policy could result in disciplinary action, even though the recording itself is legal under state law.
Recording Landline Calls in Minnesota
Residential Landline Recording
Residents with traditional landline service can record calls using:
- Inline recording devices that connect between the phone and the wall jack
- External microphone recorders placed near the handset
- Digital recording equipment connected to the phone line
- Built-in recording features on some modern landline phones
The same one-party consent rule applies. If you are a participant in the call, you can record it without notifying the other party.
Business Landline Recording
Many Minnesota businesses record landline calls for quality assurance, training, compliance documentation, and dispute resolution. Under the one-party consent framework, a business can record a call without notifying the customer when the employee on the call has consented to the recording, for example through an acknowledged written recording policy.
However, businesses commonly provide notice through pre-recorded messages ("this call may be recorded for quality purposes") or through terms of service agreements. This practice reduces legal risk for interstate calls and builds customer confidence.
Recording VoIP and Video Calls
Platforms and Services
VoIP and video call platforms transmit communications digitally over the internet. These communications fall under Section 626A.02 as either wire or electronic communications. Minnesota's one-party consent rule applies to all of them:
- Zoom calls can be recorded by any participant under Minnesota law
- Microsoft Teams meetings and calls are subject to the same rules
- Google Meet conferences follow one-party consent
- Skype calls, both audio and video, can be recorded
- FaceTime conversations are covered under the statute
- Discord voice channels fall under the electronic communications category
Platform Notification Features
Many VoIP and video platforms have built-in recording features that automatically notify all participants when recording begins. Zoom displays a recording indicator, Microsoft Teams shows a recording banner, and Google Meet announces the recording to all participants.
Using an external recording device or third-party software bypasses these platform notifications. Minnesota law does not require you to use the platform's built-in recording feature, and it does not require any notification to other participants. However, when participants are in all-party consent states, a platform notice helps, but it may not by itself count as their consent everywhere, so ask everyone to agree to the recording.
Conference Calls and Group Calls
In conference calls with multiple participants, one-party consent means that a single participant who consents to the recording satisfies the legal requirement for the entire call. You do not need consent from every person on the call, only from at least one participant (which can be yourself).
This rule applies regardless of how many people are on the call. Whether it is a two-person conversation or a conference call with dozens of participants, one consenting party is sufficient under Minnesota law.
Interstate Phone Call Recording Rules
The Conflict of Laws Problem
When you make a phone call from Minnesota to someone in another state, both states' recording laws may apply. Minnesota's one-party consent rule permits the recording, but if the other party is in a state with stricter requirements, you could potentially violate that state's law.
Minnesota's Neighboring States
Minnesota shares borders with four states and two Canadian provinces. Understanding their recording laws helps Minnesota residents navigate cross-border calls:
| Bordering Jurisdiction | Consent Requirement | Key Statute |
|---|---|---|
| Iowa | One-Party | Iowa Code Section 808B.2 |
| Wisconsin | One-Party | Wis. Stat. Section 968.31 |
| North Dakota | One-Party | N.D. Cent. Code Section 12.1-15-02 |
| South Dakota | One-Party | S.D. Codified Laws Section 23A-35A-20 |
| Manitoba, Canada | One-Party | Criminal Code Section 184 |
| Ontario, Canada | One-Party | Criminal Code Section 184 |
All of Minnesota's neighboring U.S. states follow the one-party consent standard, which makes cross-border calls with neighboring states straightforward. No additional notification is needed.
Two-Party Consent States to Watch
Minnesota residents should exercise caution when calling people in states that require all parties to consent to recording:
- California requires all-party consent under Cal. Penal Code Section 632
- Florida requires all-party consent under Fla. Stat. Section 934.03
- Illinois requires all-party consent under 720 ILCS 5/14-2
- Maryland requires all-party consent under Md. Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings Section 10-402
- Massachusetts requires all-party consent under Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 272, Section 99
- Pennsylvania requires all-party consent under 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5704
- Washington requires all-party consent under RCW 9.73.030
The safest approach when calling someone in any of these states is to tell everyone at the start that the call is being recorded and get their agreement, ideally an express yes. A notice alone may not count as consent in every state. In California, for example, the state Supreme Court has said a clear notice at the outset means a call is not confidential under Penal Code 632, but in Smith v. LoanMe (2021) it left open whether a notice followed by staying on the line is consent under Penal Code 632.7, which covers cell and cordless phone calls.
Federal Law as a Baseline
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. Section 2511) follows one-party consent and serves as a baseline. Even in interstate call situations, recordings made with one-party consent comply with federal law unless they are made to commit a crime or tort. The question is whether the stricter state law applies, which depends on factors like where the parties are located and which state has jurisdiction.
Business Phone Call Recording in Minnesota
Employer Recording of Business Calls
Minnesota employers can record business phone calls under the one-party consent rule when an employee on the call has consented, for example through a written recording policy the employee has acknowledged. An employee's mere presence on the call is not the same as consent, and recording calls the employer is not part of without that consent can violate Section 626A.02, so employers should get the consent in writing. Common business purposes for call recording include:
- Quality assurance and employee performance evaluation
- Training new employees on customer interactions
- Compliance documentation for regulated industries
- Dispute resolution and evidence preservation
- Monitoring for security threats
Call Center Operations
Call centers operating in Minnesota frequently record all inbound and outbound calls. Under Minnesota's one-party consent law, this is permissible when the call center agent has consented to the recording, typically through an acknowledged written policy. Many call centers still provide notification messages as a best practice, particularly when handling calls from customers in all-party consent states.
The Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act and Phone Recordings
The Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (MCDPA), effective July 31, 2025, adds new requirements when phone recordings are used for biometric data processing. If a business covered by the Act (generally, one that processes personal data of 100,000 or more Minnesota consumers a year) uses call recordings for voice recognition, voiceprint analysis, or speaker identification, the MCDPA requires informed consent before processing that sensitive biometric data.
This means that while recording the call itself requires only one-party consent under Section 626A.02, using that recording for biometric purposes triggers additional consent requirements under the MCDPA. Businesses should implement separate consent mechanisms for biometric processing.
Financial Industry Requirements
Financial institutions in Minnesota must also comply with federal regulations that may require call recording. For example, Commodity Futures Trading Commission rules (17 C.F.R. Section 1.35) require certain futures and swaps firms to record oral communications that lead to trades in commodity interests. These federal requirements operate alongside Minnesota's state recording laws.
Criminal Penalties for Illegal Phone Call Recording
Illegally intercepting phone calls in Minnesota is a serious criminal offense under Minn. Stat. Section 626A.02:
| Violation | Classification | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercepting a phone call without consent | Felony | 5 years | $20,000 |
| Disclosing contents of illegally recorded call | Felony | 5 years | $20,000 |
| Using contents of illegally recorded call | Felony | 5 years | $20,000 |
These penalties apply when someone records a phone call without being a party to it and without consent from any participant. They also apply when a participant records with criminal or tortious intent.
Civil Liability for Illegal Phone Call Recording
Victims of illegal phone call recording can sue under Minn. Stat. Section 626A.13 for:
- Injunctive relief to stop continued illegal recording
- Two-prong damages (whichever is greater), awarded at the court's discretion: treble actual damages plus any profits from the violation, OR statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day or $10,000
- Punitive damages in appropriate cases
- Attorney fees and litigation costs
The two-year statute of limitations begins when the victim first discovers or reasonably should have discovered the illegal recording. This discovery rule can significantly extend the time available to file a lawsuit.
Using Phone Call Recordings as Evidence
Admissibility Standards
Phone call recordings made under one-party consent are generally admissible in Minnesota courts. To introduce a recording as evidence, you must authenticate it under Minnesota Rules of Evidence, Rule 901. This requires demonstrating that the recording is what you claim it to be.
Key authentication factors include:
- Testimony from the person who made the recording about the circumstances
- Evidence that the recording device was functioning properly
- Confirmation that the recording has not been altered or edited
- Identification of the voices on the recording
- Chain of custody documentation showing how the recording was preserved
Common Uses in Court
Minnesota courts regularly accept phone call recordings as evidence in:
- Contract disputes to prove verbal agreements or negotiations
- Employment cases to document harassment, discrimination, or wrongful termination
- Family law matters to show parental fitness, verbal abuse, or custody agreement violations
- Criminal cases to establish threats, conspiracy, or admissions
- Consumer disputes to prove misrepresentations by businesses
- Personal injury cases to document statements from insurance adjusters
Hearsay Considerations
Statements captured in phone recordings may be subject to hearsay rules under Minnesota Rules of Evidence, Rule 802. However, several exceptions commonly apply:
- Admissions by a party-opponent under Rule 801(d)(2)
- Excited utterances under Rule 803(2)
- Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition under Rule 803(3)
- Business records when calls are recorded as part of regular business practice under Rule 803(6)
Practical Tips for Recording Phone Calls in Minnesota
Best Practices for Personal Recordings
When recording personal phone calls in Minnesota, consider these practices:
- Use a reliable recording device or app that produces clear audio
- Note the date, time, and identity of the other party for each recording
- Save the original recording file without any editing
- Store recordings securely with backup copies
- If the call involves someone in another state, check that state's recording laws first
When to Inform the Other Party
Although Minnesota law does not require notification, there are situations where informing the other party is advisable:
- When the other party is in a two-party consent state
- When you want the recording to be particularly credible in court
- When company policy requires disclosure
- When building trust is more important than secrecy
- When dealing with regulated industries that have their own disclosure requirements
More Minnesota Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
Back to Minnesota Recording Laws
More Minnesota Recording Topics
More Minnesota Laws
- Minnesota AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Minnesota Dashcam Laws
- Minnesota Data Privacy Laws
- Minnesota Deepfake Laws
- Minnesota Employee Monitoring Laws
- Minnesota GPS Tracking Laws
- Minnesota Police Bodycam Laws
- Minnesota Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Minnesota without telling the other person?
Yes. Minnesota is a one-party consent state under Minn. Stat. Section 626A.02. As a participant in the phone call, you can record it without informing the other person. This applies to landline calls, cell phone calls, VoIP calls, and video calls with audio.
Is it legal to use a phone call recording app in Minnesota?
Yes. Minnesota law does not restrict the type of recording device or software used. You can use any call recording app, external recorder, or built-in phone feature to capture calls you participate in. The legality depends on consent, not the recording method.
Can I record a call with someone in Illinois from Minnesota?
The recording is legal under Minnesota law, but Illinois is a two-party consent state under 720 ILCS 5/14-2. Recording without the Illinois caller's consent could violate Illinois law. The safest approach is to tell everyone at the start that you are recording and get their agreement, because a notice alone may not count as consent in every state.
Can my employer record my work phone calls in Minnesota?
Usually, if you have consented. Under one-party consent, your employer can record business calls when an employee on the call has agreed to the recording, often through a written recording policy you acknowledged. Being on the call is not the same as consenting. Many employers also use notification messages as a best practice. The MCDPA's biometric-consent rule protects consumers, not employees acting in their work role, so it applies when a business analyzes customers' voices, not its own employees'.
Can a recorded phone call be used as evidence in Minnesota court?
Yes. Phone call recordings made lawfully under one-party consent are generally admissible in Minnesota courts. The recording must be authenticated under Rule 901 of the Minnesota Rules of Evidence, showing that it is genuine, unaltered, and the speakers are identified.
Updates
Corrected an earlier changelog entry that described a cross-reference not present on the page.
Added that the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act applies only to larger businesses and that one-party federal consent does not cover a recording made to commit a crime or tort.
We corrected the advice that telling the other party satisfies all-party consent everywhere, clarified that an employer needs the employee's actual consent to record business calls, corrected the civil-damages description, removed an MCDPA claim about employees, updated the iPhone call-recording note, fixed the border list (Ontario added), corrected a financial-recording rule attribution, and fixed the TAKE IT DOWN Act date in the changelog.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Clarified § 626A.13 subd. 3(b) as an explicit two-prong damages structure (treble actual plus profits OR statutory greater of $100/day or $10,000, whichever is greater) for nonconsensual intimate image distribution via phone.
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.
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 626A: WIRE, ELECTRONIC, OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS; INTERCEPTION
§ 626A.02INTERCEPTION AND DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ELECTRONIC, OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PROHIBITEDIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Offenses. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who: (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 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: (i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or (ii) such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; (3) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication in violation of this subdivision; or (4) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 20 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. (1995) applied the 626A.02 party exemption, finding a secret recording made for commercial newsgathering was not intercepted for the purpose of a tortious act. State v. Page (1986) held an officer's use of a regular telephone extension in the ordinary course of duty was not an interception.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1995, 526 N.W.2d 402)“…l to the federal wiretapping statutes. Compare Minn.Stat. § 626A.02, subd. 1 (1992), with 18…”
- State v. Page (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1986, 386 N.W.2d 330)“…g rule applies. See 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (1982); Minn.Stat. § 626A.02 (1984). The federal rule makes it unlaw…”
- State v. Olkon (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1980, 299 N.W.2d 89)✓An undercover deputy posing as an injury client taped his calls and office meetings with a lawyer later convicted of attempted theft by swindle; the court rejected suppression, holding one party's consent meant no warrant was needed, citing the statute's consent exception.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, One-Party Consent States: Complete 2026 Guide
§ 626A.13CIVIL REMEDIESIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
Subdivision 1. In general. Except as provided in section 2511 (2)(a)(ii) of title 18 of the United States Code, a 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 that engaged in that violation relief as may be appropriate. Subd. 2. Relief. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes: (1) temporary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; (2) damages under subdivision 3 and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and (3) a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. Subd. 3. Computation of damages.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1996
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Molenaar v. United Cattle Co. (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1996, 553 N.W.2d 424)“…upp.) (false reports of maltreatment of vulnerable adults); Minn.Stat. § 626A.13, subd. 2(2) (1994) (wiretapping). [2]…”
- State v. Monsrud (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1983, 337 N.W.2d 652)“…338 A.2d 284 (1975). We decline to follow it. [4] Minn.Stat. § 626A.13 (1982), provides: Any person whose w…”
- American Computer Trust Leasing v. Jack Farrell Implement Co. (District Court, D. Minnesota 1991, 763 F. Supp. 1473)“…In Count VII, defendants seek treble damages pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 626A.13 for the alleged violation of Minn.Stat.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Minnesota Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Minnesota Security Camera Laws: Residential, Commercial, and Privacy Rules
Iowa Code, Chapter 808B: INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS
§ 808B.2Unlawful acts — penalty.In forcecited in 19 of our articles
1. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, a person who does any of the following commits a class “D” felony: a. Willfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, a wire, oral, or electronic communication. b. Willfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use an electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when either of the following applies: (1) The device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication. (2) The device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of radio communications. c. Willfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of a wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection. d.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.iowa.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2017
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Iowa courts have applied 808B.2 to covert recordings by private parties. State v. Spencer (2007) read its one-party consent exception to include vicarious consent, but only where a parent has a good faith, objectively reasonable basis for consenting for a minor child. Papillon v. Jones (2017) applied it to a hidden home recorder.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Brenda Papillon v. Bryon Jones (Supreme Court of Iowa 2017)✓A man left a hidden voice-activated recorder in his ex-girlfriend's home and captured her private phone calls, then used them in their custody case; the court affirmed liability under Section 808B.2 but held punitive damages require proof he knew he was violating the chapter.
- Iowa Beta Chapter of Phi Delta Theta Fraternity v. State, University of Iowa (Supreme Court of Iowa 2009, 763 N.W.2d 250)✓A nonmember hid a recorder in a fraternity's private meeting room and gave the tape to university officials who used it to discipline the chapter; the court held the tape was a protected oral communication and read "willfully" in Section 808B.2 to mean purposeful conduct.
- State v. Spencer (Supreme Court of Iowa 2007, 737 N.W.2d 124)✓A father secretly taped his 13-year-old daughter's calls with her teacher after suspecting sexual abuse; the court read Section 808B.2(2)(c)'s consent exception to include vicarious consent, letting a parent consent for a minor on a good-faith, objectively reasonable basis.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Iowa Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Iowa Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Iowa Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (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)
Revised Code of Washington
§ 9.73.030Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication—Consent required—Exceptions.In forcecited in 46 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication; (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 221 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Washington courts have policed what counts as a private communication under Sec. 9.73.030: State v. Gunwall (1986) concluded a pen register intercept comes within a private communication transmitted by telephone, while State v. Riley (1993) held a line trap that reveals only the calling number does not record one.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Salinas (Washington Supreme Court 1992, 119 Wash. 2d 192)“…alties for divulging a telegram or opening a sealed letter. RCW 9.73.030-.070, making it unlawful to intercept,…”
- State v. Gunwall (Washington Supreme Court 1986, 106 Wash. 2d 54)✓Everett police pulled a suspected cocaine dealer's toll records and put a pen register on her line without valid legal process; the court held a pen register intercept is a private communication transmitted by telephone, installable only under the eavesdropping statutes.
- State v. Brown (Washington Supreme Court 1997, 132 Wash. 2d 529)✓Palm Springs officers secretly recorded a Washington murder suspect's statements after his arrest; the court treated RCW 9.73.090, not 9.73.030, as the provision reaching recordings of arrested persons, and held the Privacy Act did not require suppressing that recording.
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)
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?
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 626A: WIRE, ELECTRONIC, OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS; INTERCEPTION § 626A.01 (DEFINITIONS)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Sources and References
- Minn. Stat. Section 626A.02 - Interception and Disclosure Prohibited(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. Section 626A.13 - Civil Action and Damages(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. Chapter 626A - Full Chapter(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Minnesota Rules of Evidence Rule 901(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- U.S. DOJ - Electronic Surveillance(justice.gov).gov