EnglishEspañol
Mississippi flag

Mississippi

Mississippi 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. · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

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

Updates

We corrected statements that officers can never order you to stop recording or seize your phone without a warrant (Riley v. California requires a warrant to search a phone, not to hold it), narrowed the obstruction statute to resisting arrest and added the disorderly-conduct rule, and corrected the descriptions of Turner v. Driver, livestreaming, the Open Meetings Act, body-camera records exemptions, and an inaccurate changelog line.

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

Corrected a quotation from Turner v. Driver so it matches the Fifth Circuit's opinion word for word.

Fixed a dead case-law link and added the missing second half of the Turner v. Driver holding: the Fifth Circuit granted the officers qualified immunity for the plaintiff's own 2015 conduct because the right to record police was not yet clearly established, and made the right binding only going forward, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner limits. Separately, repointed every Mississippi Code citation on this page from the Legislature's bare homepage to the specific Justia section it names.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Spoke propagation from parent hub: removed FindLaw Turner v. Driver citations (5th Cir. No. 16-10312) from the police, public-recording, and video spokes; corrected is_gov flags for legislature.ms.gov entries in SourcesList components; added keywords and citations arrays to [dashcam](/dashboard-camera-legality-and-privacy-laws-is-it-illegal-to-use-dashcams-in-north-america), landlord-tenant, and schools spokes; updated workplace spoke NLRB section to cite Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023) as the controlling work-rule standard replacing Boeing. No fabricated cases (Lewis v. State, Glazner v. Glazner) or SB 2437 references found. No 47 CFR 64.501 or FCC 23-107 references found.

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Sources and References

  1. Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017)(courtlistener.com)
  2. Miss. Code Ann. section 41-29-531(law.justia.com)
  3. 42 U.S.C. section 1983(law.cornell.edu)
  4. Riley v. California (2014)(supremecourt.gov).gov
  5. DOJ Civil Rights Division(civilrights.justice.gov).gov
  6. BJA Body-Worn Camera Programs(bja.ojp.gov).gov
Share: