EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsKnow Your RightsMissouri Laws flagMissouri Laws
Missouri flag

Missouri

Missouri Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Legal Limits

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of November 1, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed November 2, 202614 min read

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

Missouri Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Legal Limits

No Missouri law forbids recording police officers doing their jobs in public, but whether the First Amendment protects that recording is undecided in the Eighth Circuit, which covers Missouri. Missouri's wiretap statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 542.402, does not require you to tell an officer you are recording your own encounter in public. You must not interfere with police operations while recording.

No Missouri law forbids recording police officers doing their jobs in public. Whether the First Amendment protects that recording is undecided in the Eighth Circuit, which covers Missouri: in Molina v. Book (2023) it held that any such right was not clearly established in 2015. The court has held that recording in public to inform the public is protected speech (Ness v. City of Bloomington, 2021), and eight other federal circuits recognize a right to record police, so you have strong arguments, but you cannot count on a damages remedy if an officer interferes.

Missouri's wiretap statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 542.402, is covered in detail below. Its participant exception is written for phone calls, and its in-person offense reaches only devices that transmit by radio or interfere with a transmission.

This guide covers your legal right to record police in Missouri, the limits of that right, what to do if an officer tells you to stop recording, and how federal civil rights law protects you from retaliation.

The Constitutional Right to Record Police

First Amendment Protections

The First Amendment protects freedoms of speech, press, and the right to petition the government. Many federal courts have recognized that recording government officials, including police officers, performing their public duties is a form of protected expression and information gathering.

No Missouri law forbids recording police in public, but you must not interfere, and approaching within 20 feet after a warning to impede is a crime.
Record from a distance, follow orders to move back, and challenge an unlawful order later. The Eighth Circuit has not settled the right.

Eight federal appeals courts (the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits) have held that the First Amendment protects recording police officers doing their jobs in public, and the Fourth Circuit has held that livestreaming a traffic stop is protected. The Supreme Court has not ruled, and the Sixth, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits have not recognized the right. The reasoning is straightforward: the public has a right to observe and document the conduct of government officials who exercise power on behalf of the public.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals Rulings

Missouri falls within the Eighth Circuit, which covers Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The Eighth Circuit has not decided whether the First Amendment protects recording police, which puts it with the Sixth and D.C. Circuits rather than the eight circuits that recognize the right, and Missouri residents must understand these limits before relying on a "clearly established" right.

Molina v. Book, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023) (cert. denied Feb. 20, 2024): This is the controlling Eighth Circuit authority on the right to record police, and it is not a uniform, one-sided ruling. A divided panel held that recording and observing police at a distance was not a clearly established First Amendment right as of the officers' 2015 conduct, so two of the three plaintiffs could not overcome qualified immunity. Judge Benton dissented from that part of the ruling, arguing that the panel's own precedent in Chestnut v. Wallace already clearly established the right and that one Eighth Circuit panel cannot overrule another. The third plaintiff, Peter Groce, defeated qualified immunity on his own First Amendment retaliation claim, and the panel let his case proceed. Because the right was not clearly established as of 2015 for the other two plaintiffs, officers can still raise qualified immunity as a shield from personal Section 1983 liability when they interfere with recording, but the question remains contested within the circuit itself.

Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021): The court granted officers qualified immunity on Robbins's First Amendment retaliation claim over recording vehicles, officers, and employees near the Des Moines police station. It assumed he had a protected right to record, but held that, given his evasive conduct and what the officers knew about recent car thefts in the area and a prior filming incident that led to the murder of two officers, their response was not objectively unreasonable under clearly established law. It reversed the grant of qualified immunity on his false-arrest and property-seizure claims.

Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020): The court held that a right to watch police-citizen interactions at a distance and without interfering was clearly established at the time. Chestnut was watching traffic stops, not recording them, so the court did not rule on a separate right to record, though it cited other circuits' decisions recognizing a right to record police as persuasive support.

Ness v. City of Bloomington, 11 F.4th 914 (8th Cir. 2021): The court held that photographing and video recording in a public park to inform the public about a local controversy is protected speech, because recording is "an important stage of the speech process." It added that recording unrelated to an expressive purpose may not be protected. Ness did not involve police, so it does not decide whether recording officers is protected, but it supports the argument when you record to inform the public.

Akins v. Knight, 863 F.3d 1084 (8th Cir. 2017): A Columbia, Missouri man sued after police ordered him to stop filming the filing of a citizen complaint in the police department lobby, among other claims. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment against him in a brief per curiam opinion that adopted the district court's reasoning without articulating its own rule about recording inside police buildings. The case shows that a claim over filming inside a Missouri police station has been rejected once in the Eighth Circuit, but it does not establish a clear, general rule that recording inside a police station is unprotected.

The practical consequence is significant. While you can assert a First Amendment right to record and most federal circuits recognize that right, in Missouri an officer who stops you from recording can claim qualified immunity and face no personal civil liability. This does not make recording illegal, but it does reduce your ability to recover damages through a Section 1983 lawsuit after the fact.

What You Can Record

In Missouri, you can legally record:

  • Traffic stops (including your own)
  • Arrests happening in public
  • Officers on foot patrol or responding to calls
  • Police interactions with other members of the public
  • DUI checkpoints and roadblocks
  • Protests, demonstrations, and crowd control operations
  • Any police activity visible from a public space or a place where you have a right to be

You can also livestream these encounters in real time using your phone or other device.

Missouri police interview room with a table, two chairs, and a wall-mounted camera

Audio Recording During Police Encounters

Missouri's wiretapping statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 542.402, treats wire and oral communications differently. Intercepting a wire communication (such as a phone call) is a crime unless you are a party to it or a party has consented (and the interception is not for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act). For in-person ("oral") communications, the statute makes it a crime to intercept them only with a device that "transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication." When you record your own interaction with a police officer, you do not need to tell the officer you are recording.

When you record someone else's interaction with police from a distance, the analysis turns on the device, not on consent:

  • Recording an officer's in-person conversation on a phone or camera that stores the audio does not fit the oral-communication offense in Section 542.402.1(2), which reaches only devices that transmit by radio or interfere with the transmission; the party-consent exception in Section 542.402.2(3) is written for wire communications
  • Whether livestreaming a bystander recording counts as using a device that "transmits communications by radio" has not been clearly resolved, so treat live audio of other people's conversations with more caution than a stored recording
  • The statute also protects only "oral communications" uttered with a justified expectation that they are not subject to interception (Section 542.400), and conversations with police in public spaces often lack that expectation

Video-Only Recording

Video-only recording (without audio) does not fall under Missouri's wiretapping statute. You can film police activity without audio and face no wiretapping liability. Most smartphone recordings capture both audio and video, so the wiretapping analysis above is still relevant for most practical situations.

Limits on Recording Police

A plain dark sedan parked at the curb of a quiet residential street at dusk, tail lights glowing

You Cannot Interfere with Police Operations

The right to record is not a right to obstruct. Missouri law prohibits interfering with law enforcement officers performing their duties. Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 575.150 (resisting or interfering with arrest, detention, or stop) makes it a crime to:

  • Physically resist or interfere with an arrest or detention
  • Flee from an officer who is attempting a lawful stop
  • Use physical force against an officer

Recording, by itself, does not constitute interference. Holding up a phone and filming does not physically impede an officer. However, you can cross the line if you:

  • Step into an active arrest scene and physically prevent the officer from handcuffing someone
  • Block a police vehicle or emergency equipment
  • Refuse a lawful order to move back to a safe distance
  • Create a disturbance that draws officer attention away from a dangerous situation

Lawful Orders to Move Back

Officers can issue lawful orders requiring you to move back from a scene to a reasonable distance. Courts have upheld "reasonable distance" requirements that balance your right to record with the officer's need to maintain safety and control of the scene.

What constitutes a "reasonable distance" depends on the specific situation. In a routine traffic stop, a shorter distance may be enough, but after a verbal warning not to approach, do not move closer than 20 feet (see Missouri's 20-foot law below). In an active shooter situation or a large-scale disturbance, officers may establish a wider perimeter.

If an officer tells you to step back, comply. You can continue recording from the new location. Arguing with the officer about your right to record in the moment is unlikely to help and could lead to an arrest for obstruction or failure to comply with a lawful order.

Missouri's 20-Foot Interference Law

Since August 28, 2025, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 574.207 (House Bill 225 of 2025) creates the offense of interference with a first responder. It applies when a person receives a verbal warning not to approach from someone the person knows or reasonably should know is a first responder engaged in the lawful performance of a legal duty, then knowingly and willfully violates the warning and approaches within 20 feet with the intent to impede or interfere with the responder's legal duty, threaten the responder with physical harm, or engage in a course of conduct directed at the responder that serves no legitimate purpose. It is a class B misdemeanor for a first offense and a class A misdemeanor for a second or later offense. First responders include law enforcement officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians.

The statute covers approaching, not remaining in place, and it states that it "shall have no impact on an individual's first amendment rights, and shall not restrict the ability to observe or record first responders." We have not found a court challenge to it.

Areas Where Recording May Be Restricted

  • Inside police stations: In Akins v. Knight, 863 F.3d 1084 (8th Cir. 2017), the Eighth Circuit affirmed a ruling against a man who was ordered to stop filming inside a Columbia, Missouri police department lobby, though the court's opinion did not spell out a general rule for recording inside police buildings. Departments commonly restrict recording inside their facilities citing security concerns, and the Akins opinion does not decide whether any right protects filming there.
  • Secured crime scenes: Officers can restrict access to active crime scenes. You cannot trespass past a police barrier to record.
  • Courtrooms: Recording in Missouri courtrooms is governed by Missouri Supreme Court rules on courtroom media coverage and requires the presiding judge's permission.
  • Jail and prison facilities: Recording inside correctional facilities is generally prohibited and subject to facility rules.

What to Do If Police Tell You to Stop Recording

Missouri courtroom interior with wooden benches, judge bench area, and american flag

Your Response Options

If an officer orders you to stop recording:

  1. Stay calm and respectful. Confrontation escalates situations.
  2. State clearly but politely: "I am exercising my First Amendment right to record. I am not interfering with your duties."
  3. If the officer insists, comply. No court in the Eighth Circuit has held that officers can never order you to stop recording, so say you do not consent, follow the order, and challenge it later. Officers should not delete your footage, so back up recordings as you go.
  4. Do not resist physically. If an officer seizes your phone, do not fight for it. Note the officer's name and badge number.
  5. File a complaint afterward. Contact the department's internal affairs division, the ACLU of Missouri, or a civil rights attorney.

Officers Should Not Delete Your Footage

Officers should not delete recordings from your device. Deleting your footage is open to challenge as an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and if an officer deletes it, that can support a later civil rights claim.

Police Need a Warrant to Search Your Phone

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) that police generally must obtain a warrant before searching the contents of a cell phone, although they may hold the phone while they get one. Taking your phone only because you were recording, with no probable cause that it holds evidence of a crime, is open to a Fourth Amendment challenge, as in Robbins v. City of Des Moines (8th Cir. 2021), where a twelve-day seizure of a recorder's camera and phone was held unreasonable.

Civil Rights Remedies: 42 U.S.C. Section 1983

Suing for Violations of Your Recording Rights

If a police officer violates your right to record by arresting you, seizing your phone, deleting your footage, or using force against you for filming, you may have a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Section 1983 allows individuals to sue state and local government officials who violate their constitutional rights while acting under color of state law. Successful claims can result in:

  • Compensatory damages for emotional distress, physical injury, lost wages, and other harm
  • Punitive damages when the officer acted with malice or reckless disregard for your rights
  • Attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. Section 1988
  • Injunctive relief ordering the department to change its policies

Qualified Immunity

Officers may raise qualified immunity as a defense, arguing that the right to record was not "clearly established" at the time of the alleged violation. The strength of this defense depends on existing precedent in the Eighth Circuit. As more federal courts recognize the right to record, qualified immunity becomes harder for officers to claim.

Municipal Liability

If a police department has a pattern or practice of retaliating against people who record officers, the municipality itself may be liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978). Under Monell, municipal liability requires showing that the violation resulted from the execution of an official policy or custom, not merely that the city employed the officer.

Recording Government Meetings Under Missouri's Sunshine Law

Open Meetings Act

Missouri's Sunshine Law under Mo. Rev. Stat. Chapter 610 establishes that meetings, records, votes, actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies must be open to the public unless specifically exempted. Section 610.020 requires that recording of public meetings must be allowed.

You can record:

  • City council meetings
  • County commission meetings
  • Police board meetings and citizen review board proceedings
  • School board meetings
  • State legislative hearings
  • Any meeting of a public governmental body

Closed Sessions

Missouri law allows public bodies to close meetings for specific reasons listed in Section 610.021, including discussions about legal actions, personnel matters, and real estate negotiations. Recording during closed sessions is not permitted. However, the vote to close the meeting must occur in open session and be recorded.

Police Body Cameras in Missouri

Missouri Body Camera Laws

Missouri does not have a statewide mandate requiring all police officers to wear body cameras. Individual departments set their own policies. However, several Missouri cities and counties have adopted body camera programs.

When body camera footage exists, it may be accessible through public records requests under Missouri's Sunshine Law. Under Section 610.100, body-camera and dashcam video is closed while an investigation is active. Video recorded in a nonpublic location, such as a home, school, or medical facility, may stay closed even afterward, though people shown or heard in it, their family, attorney, or insurer can get a copy on written request, and a court can order release. Section 610.205 separately closes crime-scene images of mutilated deceased persons.

Requesting Body Camera Footage

To request body camera footage:

  1. Submit a written request under the Sunshine Law to the relevant police department
  2. Be as specific as possible about the date, time, location, and officers involved
  3. The department must respond within three business days
  4. Fees for copying and reviewing footage may apply

Recording During Protests and Demonstrations

Your Rights at Protests

Missouri has a strong tradition of public protest, and no Missouri law forbids recording during demonstrations, although the Eighth Circuit has not decided whether the First Amendment protects recording police. During the Ferguson protests in 2014-2015, recording by citizens and journalists played a critical role in documenting law enforcement conduct. Courts subsequently addressed several cases involving the rights of individuals to record police during those events.

You can:

  • Record police and other officials during protests
  • Livestream demonstrations in real time
  • Photograph officers, their badge numbers, and their vehicles
  • Share recordings on social media

Practical Tips for Recording Police in Missouri

Before an Encounter

  • Know your rights: Familiarize yourself with Missouri's wiretap law and the unsettled First Amendment law on recording police in the Eighth Circuit
  • Enable cloud backup: Set your phone to automatically upload photos and videos to cloud storage so footage is preserved even if your phone is seized
  • Keep your phone charged: A dead phone cannot record
  • Consider a body camera or wearable recorder: These devices allow hands-free recording

During an Encounter

  • Hold your phone steady and keep it visible
  • Stand at a safe distance that does not interfere with police activity
  • Do not touch officers or their equipment
  • Identify yourself as a bystander who is recording if asked, but you are not required to provide ID unless you are being detained
  • Follow lawful orders to move back, but continue recording from the new position

After an Encounter

  • Save and back up all footage immediately
  • Write down details you observed: officer names, badge numbers, vehicle numbers, time, and location
  • Do not post footage publicly if it could interfere with an ongoing investigation or put someone at risk
  • Contact a civil rights attorney if your rights were violated

Explore More Missouri Recording Laws

Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism Laws | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant Recording | Dashcam Laws | School Recording | Medical Recording

Back to Missouri Recording Laws

More Missouri Recording Topics

More Missouri Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I record police officers in Missouri?

Yes. No Missouri law forbids recording police officers doing their jobs in public, and you do not need to ask permission to film officers in public. Whether the First Amendment protects that recording is undecided in the Eighth Circuit, which covers Missouri: Molina v. Book (2023) held that any such right was not clearly established in 2015. Ness v. City of Bloomington (2021) holds that recording in public to inform the public is protected speech, although recording unrelated to an expressive purpose may not be.

Can a police officer tell me to stop recording in Missouri?

An officer can ask you to move back to a safe distance, and you should comply with that request. No court in the Eighth Circuit has held that officers can never order you to stop recording. If an officer orders you to stop, you can say you do not consent, but comply and challenge the order later. Officers should not delete your footage, and deleting it is open to challenge, so back up recordings as you go and file a complaint afterward.

Can police confiscate my phone for recording them?

Under Riley v. California (2014), police generally need a warrant to search the contents of your phone, although they may hold the phone while they get one. Taking your phone only because you recorded an officer, with no probable cause that it holds evidence of a crime, is open to a Fourth Amendment challenge; in Robbins v. City of Des Moines (8th Cir. 2021), a twelve-day seizure of a recorder's camera and phone was held unreasonable. If your phone is taken, note the officer's name and badge number and contact a civil rights attorney.

Can I record inside a police station in Missouri?

In Akins v. Knight, 863 F.3d 1084 (8th Cir. 2017), the Eighth Circuit affirmed a ruling against a Missouri man who was told to stop filming inside a police department lobby, but the court's opinion did not lay out a specific rule for recording inside police stations. Departments commonly restrict recording inside their facilities for security reasons, and the Akins opinion does not decide whether any right protects filming there. You can record outside the station and on public sidewalks adjacent to it.

What can I do if a police officer arrests me for recording?

An arrest solely for recording police activity in public, without probable cause of a crime, can violate the Fourth Amendment, and it may violate the First Amendment, although the Eighth Circuit has not decided that question. You may have a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Contact the ACLU of Missouri or a civil rights attorney. Document everything about the encounter including officer names, badge numbers, and the circumstances of your arrest.

Updates

Softened an unsourced claim about police deleting footage to say officers should not delete it and that deletion is open to a Fourth Amendment challenge.

We corrected the page's central claim: the Eighth Circuit, which covers Missouri, has not decided whether the First Amendment protects recording police (we added Ness v. City of Bloomington and the correct circuit count), and we fixed statements that police cannot seize a phone without a warrant or order you to stop recording, removed a nonexistent shield-law citation (section 595.023), and corrected the body-camera access rules.

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

Added Missouri's 20-foot interference-with-a-first-responder law (Mo. Rev. Stat. 574.207), in effect since August 28, 2025, including its intent requirement, penalties, and express protection for observing and recording.

Corrected our explanation of how Missouri's wiretap statute applies to bystanders recording police audio: the in-person offense covers only radio-transmitting devices, and the party-consent exception applies to wire communications.

Corrected our description of Akins v. Knight: the Eighth Circuit affirmed without deciding whether any right protects filming inside a police station, so we no longer say no clearly established right exists there.

Corrected the descriptions of Monell v. Department of Social Services, Robbins v. City of Des Moines, and Chestnut v. Wallace to match what those opinions actually held, including that Robbins won reversal on his false-arrest and property-seizure claims.

Corrected the name of the controlling Eighth Circuit case (Molina v. City of St. Louis is actually Molina v. Book) and clarified that the ruling was a divided decision with a dissent, not a settled rule, and that one of the three plaintiffs in that case won his own claim. Replaced a dead Riley v. California citation link. Added a verified citation for Akins v. Knight and corrected its description, since the actual Eighth Circuit opinion is a brief summary affirmance that does not state the specific rule the page had attributed to it.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources

Corrected the citation for when closed police investigation records become available: RSMo 610.100 (not 610.021, which governs closed-meeting exemptions, not investigation-record availability).

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Sources and References

  1. Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 542.402 - Wiretapping(revisor.mo.gov).gov
  2. Mo. Rev. Stat. Chapter 610 - Sunshine Law(revisor.mo.gov).gov
  3. Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 610.020 - Open Meetings(revisor.mo.gov).gov
  4. Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 575.150 - Resisting Arrest(revisor.mo.gov).gov
  5. 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 - Civil Rights Act(law.cornell.edu)
  6. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)(supremecourt.gov).gov
  7. Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 610.100 - Law Enforcement Records(revisor.mo.gov).gov
  8. Molina v. Book, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023)(ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov).gov
  9. Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021)(law.cornell.edu)
  10. Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020)(law.cornell.edu)
  11. Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 610.205 - Law Enforcement Recordings(revisor.mo.gov).gov
  12. Akins v. Knight, 863 F.3d 1084 (8th Cir. 2017)(ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov)
  13. Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 574.207 - Interference with a first responder(revisor.mo.gov).gov
  14. Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 542.400 - Wiretap definitions(revisor.mo.gov).gov
  15. Ness v. City of Bloomington, 11 F.4th 914 (8th Cir. 2021)(ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov).gov
Share: