Missouri

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

By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 202615 min read

Missouri is a one-party consent state for audio recording under Mo. Rev. Stat. section 542.402.2(3). A participant in a phone call or wire communication may record without notifying the other parties, but that right vanishes if the recording is made for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act. Unlawful interception is a Class E felony, and victims can sue for a statutory minimum of $10,000 in damages.

Missouri recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
Consent rule	One-party for wire/phone (section 542.402.2(3))
Main statute	Mo. Rev. Stat. sections 542.400 to 542.422
When it is illegal	Recording without participant status or consent, OR recording for a criminal/tortious purpose
Criminal penalty	Class E felony: up to 4 years prison, up to $10,000 fine
Civil penalty	Greater of $100/day or $10,000 floor, plus actual damages, punitives, attorney fees (section 542.418)
Hidden cameras	Section 565.252: Class A misdemeanor (nude in private place, or upskirt); Class E felony with aggravators
Recording police	Eighth Circuit has not clearly established a First Amendment right (Molina 2023, Robbins 2021)

For a full breakdown of every recording scenario, jump to the in-depth guides below.

Recording in-person conversations in Missouri

Missouri's one-party rule applies clearly to phone calls. For in-person private conversations, the law is genuinely unsettled, and the conservative practice is all-party consent.

The structural issue: the consent exception in section 542.402.2(3) is written around "wire communication." The criminal prohibition in subsection 1(2) separately reaches using a device to intercept "oral communication" transmitted over wire or by radio, and section 542.400(8) defines "oral communication" as any communication uttered by a person "exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." That Katz-style gate is the key. No Missouri appellate court has squarely resolved whether the wire-communication consent exception extends to oral-communication captures. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press reads the statute as imposing an all-party rule for in-person private conversations. A competing reading treats Missouri as flatly one-party by analogy to federal Title III.

The practical rule: if the speaker is in a closed office, private home, hotel room, or other setting with a reasonable expectation of privacy, obtain all-party consent before recording. The upside is compliance; the downside of getting it wrong is Class E felony exposure plus a $10,000 civil minimum. In places with no privacy expectation (a crowded restaurant, a public sidewalk, an open public meeting), the section 542.400(8) gate is not triggered and the one-party rule applies.

The Missouri Bar's Formal Opinion 123 (March 8, 2006) confirms that attorneys may record their own conversations without prior notice, but only when recording is legal in the jurisdiction, and attorneys representing current clients must give notice before recording them.

a delivery driver in a uniform standing at a front door step holding a small cardboard package, captured from a low door

Recording phone calls in Missouri

Phone calls are the clearest case. Under section 542.402.2(3), a participant in a landline call, a cellular call, or a VoIP session (Zoom, Teams, FaceTime audio, Google Meet) may record without telling the other party, so long as the purpose is not criminal or tortious.

Missouri's two largest metro areas create routine interstate exposure. St. Louis sits directly across from Illinois, one of the strictest all-party consent states: recording a private call with someone in Belleville or East St. Louis without consent is potentially a Class 4 felony under 720 ILCS 5/14-2. The Kansas City metro crosses into Kansas (one-party), but calls to California, Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, or Washington trigger those states' all-party rules.

The conservative rule for cross-state calls: get verbal consent on the record before pressing record. A simple "I'm recording this call, do you consent?" covers most situations. Business call centers typically use a recorded announcement at the outset, which serves the same purpose.

For more on interstate calls, see Missouri Phone Call Recording Laws.

side profile of a woman in a business blouse holding a smartphone to her ear mid-call, walking through a sunlit office h

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Missouri's visual surreptitious-recording statute is section 565.252 (invasion of privacy in the second degree). It operates independently of the wiretap statute and covers two scenarios.

Prong 1 (nude in private place): Knowingly photographing, filming, or creating an image of a person without their consent, while the person is fully or partially nude, in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Both elements are required: nudity and a privacy expectation.

Prong 2 (upskirt/down-blouse): Knowingly creating an image under or through a person's clothing to view their body or undergarments without consent. No privacy expectation is needed here; this prong reaches public places like stairways, department stores, and sidewalks.

The base offense is a Class A misdemeanor (up to 1 year, up to $2,000 fine). Three aggravators escalate to Class E felony: disseminating the image to another person or online, capturing multiple victims in the same course of conduct, or having a prior invasion-of-privacy conviction.

Ring doorbells and front-porch cameras are generally lawful. Visitors on a front porch typically lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in their visual presence. The audio side is different: if the homeowner is not a party to a porch conversation, the wiretap analysis applies, and the section 542.400(8) privacy-expectation gate governs. Front-porch conversations generally do not meet that gate at typical conversational volumes.

Nanny cams inside the home require care. A camera in a child's bedroom capturing a fully clothed nanny does not trigger section 565.252's nudity prong. A camera in a guest bathroom or domestic worker's private quarters does. For audio: if the homeowner is not a party to a nanny-child conversation, the homeowner is a non-participant and the full wiretap analysis applies. Written consent from caregivers before audio-capable cameras record them is the safest practice.

Dashcams are legal in Missouri. No specific statute restricts them. Audio inside the cabin is governed by section 542.402: a driver who participates in the conversation has one-party consent rights for that conversation. See Missouri Dashcam Laws for detailed analysis.

For more detail, see Missouri Voyeurism Laws and Missouri Security Camera Laws.

Penalties for illegal recording in Missouri

Missouri splits its penalty structure across two statute families. The wiretap regime (section 542.402) governs audio interception. The invasion-of-privacy regime (section 565.252) governs visual surreptitious recording. A separate statute family covers nonconsensual intimate images.

Statute	Conduct	Class	Prison	Fine	Civil
Section 542.402.1	Unlawful audio interception, disclosure, or use	Class E felony	Up to 4 years	Up to $10,000	$10,000 floor or $100/day (section 542.418)
Section 565.252.1	Nude/private visual capture; upskirt	Class A misdemeanor	Up to 1 year	Up to $2,000	None statutory
Section 565.252 (aggravated)	Dissemination, multiple victims, or prior conviction	Class E felony	Up to 4 years	Up to $10,000	None statutory
Section 573.110	Nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images (actual recordings, not AI)	Class D felony	Up to 7 years	Up to $10,000	$10,000 floor plus attorney fees
Section 573.112	Threatening to disseminate	Class E felony	Up to 4 years	Up to $10,000	None statutory

The section 542.418 civil cause of action is unusually plaintiff-friendly. The floor is the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is larger. Punitive damages are available for willful or intentional violations, on top of that floor. Reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs are also recoverable. Disclosure and use of an unlawfully obtained recording are independent offenses from the underlying interception, so a person who merely forwards someone else's unlawful recording can face both criminal and civil liability under section 542.402.1(3) and (4).

Missouri's $10,000 civil minimum is one of the strongest deterrents in any one-party consent state. It creates real plaintiff leverage in family-law and employment disputes where a wiretap claim layers on top of the primary cause of action.

A good-faith reliance defense exists under section 542.402 for those who relied on a court order or on law-enforcement authorization. The defense is narrow and does not cover a subjective belief that recording was lawful.

reporter in three-quarter view holding a small handheld microphone toward a person speaking at a podium, both visible fr

Recording the police in Missouri

The most important Missouri-specific point on this topic: the Eighth Circuit has NOT clearly established a First Amendment right to record police officers performing their duties in public. This puts Missouri in a materially different posture from every other federal circuit that has addressed the question.

Molina v. Book, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023) is the lead authority. Two attorney-observers wearing National Lawyers Guild hats sued after officers fired tear gas canisters at them while they passively observed a protest response from private property in St. Louis. The Eighth Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity, holding that a right to passively observe police activity was not clearly established in the Eighth Circuit for qualified-immunity purposes. Rehearing en banc and certiorari were both denied.

Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021) reinforces this posture. Robbins recorded illegally parked vehicles from a sidewalk adjacent to the Des Moines police station. Officers detained him and held his camera and phone for twelve days. The court granted qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim (no clearly established right to record police on a public sidewalk in the Eighth Circuit), but reversed on the Fourth Amendment seizure claim, finding no probable cause for arrest and the twelve-day seizure unreasonable. This case binds Missouri courts.

Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020) is the pro-citizen bookend. The court denied qualified immunity to an officer who detained and handcuffed a citizen who was passively observing a traffic stop from forty to fifty feet away. Passive observation is clearly protected. But Chestnut is a Fourth Amendment case; it does not clearly establish a First Amendment right to record.

The combined Eighth Circuit framework: passive observation is protected; active recording on a public sidewalk is not yet clearly established for qualified-immunity purposes. Missouri citizens can still pursue Fourth Amendment seizure claims (Robbins is the template) and First Amendment retaliation claims backed by evidence of retaliatory motive, but a pure right-to-record theory faces a qualified-immunity wall.

Practically: stay at a reasonable distance, do not interfere with police activity, comply with lawful orders to move back, and do not trespass to record. For a full treatment, see Missouri Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in Missouri

Workplace recording

Missouri's one-party rule lets employees record conversations they participate in, including performance reviews, disciplinary meetings, and HR sessions. The criminal-or-tortious-purpose carve-out in section 542.402.2(3) is the limit: a recording made for blackmail, harassment, or fraud is unlawful regardless of participation. Employer cameras in restrooms, locker rooms, or changing areas violate section 565.252 regardless of who operates them. For workplace no-recording policies, NLRB Stericycle (372 NLRB No. 113, Aug. 2, 2023) remains binding Board law: a policy is presumptively unlawful if a reasonable employee could read it to chill Section 7 activity, and the employer must show a legitimate business interest that cannot be served by a narrower rule. Missouri is not a right-to-work state (Proposition A repealed the right-to-work law by referendum in August 2018), so NLRA enforcement exposure for overbroad policies is higher than in surrounding states. See Missouri Workplace Recording Laws.

Body cameras and the Sunshine Law

Body-cam and dashcam footage is governed by the Missouri Sunshine Law at section 610.100. Mobile video recordings are closed records until the investigation becomes inactive. A person depicted in a recording, their attorney, insurer, or family members may obtain a complete, unaltered copy on written request. Section 590.700 governs custodial interrogation recording for enumerated serious felonies; it is not a body-cam statute. Missouri has no statewide body-cam mandate. The Missouri Attorney General's Sunshine Law guide is the citizen-facing summary. For public-records requests, see Missouri Laws on Recording in Public.

Deepfakes and AI-generated intimate imagery

Missouri has NOT enacted a deepfake or AI-generated intimate image statute as of June 5, 2026. The Missouri House passed HB 2321 in April 2026 (a bill that would criminalize nonconsensual intimate digital depictions and require AI-content labeling), but it had not been signed into law at this writing. Earlier bills SB 1444 and SB 1424 (both 2024) failed; SB 1748, SB 1117 (the "Taylor Swift Act"), and related 2026 bills also remained pending. Missouri's existing nonconsensual intimate image statute, section 573.110, reaches only actual photographs, films, and digital recordings of real people, not AI-generated or synthetic imagery. Missouri victims of deepfake harassment must currently rely on general harassment and stalking statutes, common-law privacy torts, and the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025), which requires covered platforms to honor 48-hour notice-and-takedown obligations for nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI-generated deepfakes.

Federal overlay

The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. 2510-2522) sets a one-party floor that mirrors Missouri's rule. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) classifies AI-generated voices in robocalls as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA, requiring prior express written consent for marketing calls to wireless and residential lines. The FCC's "One-to-One Consent" rule (FCC 24-24) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in April 2025; the pre-existing TCPA consent regime now governs. The older 47 C.F.R. 64.501 carrier-recording-disclosure rule was removed effective November 20, 2017; Missouri enforcement now runs through section 542.402 and the section 542.418 civil action. HIPAA permits patients to record their own healthcare visits under Missouri's one-party rule, but covered entities recording patients need HIPAA authorization. Missouri debt collectors on collection calls need only one-party consent under state law; out-of-state collectors from stricter states must comply with the more protective state's rule under Regulation F (12 C.F.R. Part 1006).

Public meetings and courtrooms

The Missouri Sunshine Law (section 610.020.3) preserves the right to record open meetings of public governmental bodies: city councils, county commissions, school boards, and similar bodies. Recording inside a Missouri courtroom is governed by Missouri Court Operating Rule 16 and requires the presiding judge's discretion. Juvenile, adoption, domestic-relations, and child-custody proceedings are typically excluded from media coverage.

Recent legal developments

May 19, 2025: TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12) signed. Criminal provisions in force immediately; platform notice-and-takedown compliance deadline was May 19, 2026.
April 2026: Missouri House passed HB 2321 (AI-Generated Content Accountability and Privacy Protection Act). As of June 5, 2026, not yet signed by the governor. If enacted, would criminalize nonconsensual intimate digital depictions and require labeling of AI-generated content.
2024: SB 1444 and SB 1424 (deepfake intimate image bills) failed in the 102nd General Assembly.
Aug. 2, 2023: NLRB Stericycle decision replaced the Boeing categorical framework with a fact-intensive test for workplace no-recording policies.
Feb. 8, 2024: FCC 24-17 classifies AI-cloned voices in robocalls as requiring TCPA consent.
April 30, 2025: Eleventh Circuit mandate vacating FCC 24-24 One-to-One Consent rule; pre-rule TCPA regime reinstated.
June 25, 2025: NLRB GC 25-07 treats surreptitious recording of NLRA collective-bargaining sessions as a per se duty-to-bargain violation.

Missouri recording laws in depth

Want to go deeper? These sub-pages cover each Missouri recording context in full.

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Missouri 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 Missouri attorney.

a journalist seated across a small wooden table from an interview subject in a quiet office, a small digital voice recor

More Missouri Laws

Sources and References

Mo. Rev. Stat. section 542.400 (definitions)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
Mo. Rev. Stat. section 542.402 (criminal interception, Class E felony, one-party consent)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
Mo. Rev. Stat. section 542.418 (civil cause of action, $10,000 liquidated minimum)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
Mo. Rev. Stat. section 565.252 (invasion of privacy in the second degree)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
Mo. Rev. Stat. section 573.110 (nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
Mo. Rev. Stat. section 573.112 (threatening nonconsensual dissemination)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
Mo. Rev. Stat. section 558.011 (felony imprisonment terms)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
Mo. Rev. Stat. section 558.002 (felony fines)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
Mo. Rev. Stat. section 590.700 (custodial interrogation recording)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
Mo. Rev. Stat. section 610.100 (mobile video recordings under Sunshine Law)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
Mo. Rev. Stat. section 610.205 (crime-scene closed-records carve-out)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
Mo. Rev. Stat. section 610.021 (general investigative-records exemption)(revisor.mo.gov).gov
Missouri Attorney General Sunshine Law guide(ago.mo.gov).gov
Missouri Supreme Court Advisory Committee Formal Opinion 123 (2006)(courts.mo.gov).gov
Molina v. Book, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023)(ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov).gov
Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021)(ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov).gov
Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020)(ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov).gov
ECPA, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2522(uscode.house.gov).gov
DOJ Justice Manual section 9-7.302(justice.gov).gov
FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (AI voice in robocalls)(docs.fcc.gov).gov
Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC (11th Cir. 2025) (FCC 24-24 vacatur)(media.ca11.uscourts.gov).gov
FCC removal of One-to-One Consent Rule(fcc.gov).gov
FCC consumer guide on recording phone calls(fcc.gov).gov
TAKE IT DOWN Act, S. 146 (Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025)(congress.gov).gov
NLRB Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023)(nlrb.gov).gov
NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025)(nlrb.gov).gov
NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025)(nlrb.gov).gov
FTC v. Ring LLC (2023)(ftc.gov).gov
45 C.F.R. Part 164 (HIPAA Privacy Rule)(ecfr.gov).gov
12 C.F.R. Part 1006 (Regulation F)(ecfr.gov).gov
47 U.S.C. ch. 9 (CALEA)(uscode.house.gov).gov
Missouri HB 2321 (2026) bill text(documents.house.mo.gov).gov
Missouri SB 1117 (2026, Taylor Swift Act)(senate.mo.gov).gov
Missouri SB 1748 (2026)(senate.mo.gov).gov
Missouri SB 1444 (2024) bill text(senate.mo.gov).gov
Missouri SB 1424 (2024) bill text(senate.mo.gov).gov