Nebraska
Nebraska Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (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. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Nebraska is a one-party consent state, so any participant in a phone call may legally record it without notifying the other party. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290, this rule covers landline, cell phone, and VoIP calls, provided the recording is not made for a criminal or tortious purpose.
Quick Answer
You can record phone calls in Nebraska without telling the other person. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290, Nebraska follows the one-party consent rule, meaning only one participant in a phone call needs to consent to the recording. That participant can be you. There is no legal requirement to announce that a call is being recorded, play a beep tone, or obtain verbal agreement from the other caller. The rule applies to all types of phone calls, including landline, cellular, and internet-based (VoIP) calls.
| Detail | Answer |
|---|---|
| Can you record your own calls? | Yes |
| Must you tell the other person? | No |
| Consent type | One-party |
| Primary statute | Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290 |
| Covers cell phones? | Yes |
| Covers VoIP? | Yes |
| Business call recording | Calls the business takes part in: yes (one-party rule); employee monitoring: only as the 86-290(2)(a) exception allows, with notice for random monitoring |
| Criminal penalty for violations | Class IV felony (up to 2 years, a $10,000 fine, or both) |
The Legal Framework for Phone Call Recording
Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290: The One-Party Consent Rule
Nebraska's wiretapping statute, Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290, prohibits the intentional interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications. However, the statute creates a critical exception: recording is lawful when at least one party to the communication consents, provided the recording is not made for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act.

In the context of phone calls, this means:
- You can record any call you are on without telling the other person
- You can use any recording method (built-in phone features, external recorders, apps, dedicated devices)
- The recording is legal from the moment the call begins until it ends
- You do not need to provide any notice or warning
Types of Phone Calls Covered
Nebraska's one-party consent rule applies uniformly across all types of telephone communications:
Landline calls: Traditional wired telephone calls are classified as "wire communications" under the statute. They receive full protection, and illegal interception is always a felony.
Cell phone calls: Cellular calls are covered by the statute. Nebraska law includes specific provisions about the interception of radio portions of cellular communications, with slightly different penalty classifications for certain violations.
VoIP calls: Voice over Internet Protocol calls (including Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, FaceTime, WhatsApp calls, and similar platforms) are classified as "electronic communications" under the statute and are subject to the same one-party consent rule.
Video calls with audio: When a video call includes audio, the one-party consent rule applies to the audio portion. The video component is not separately governed by the wiretapping statute.
The "No Criminal or Tortious Purpose" Restriction
The one-party consent exception has a limit. The recording cannot be made for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of federal or state law. This restriction applies to all phone call recordings, regardless of whether you have consent. Examples of impermissible purposes:
- Recording calls to gather information for blackmail or extortion
- Recording calls to facilitate stalking or harassment
- Recording calls to steal trade secrets or proprietary information
- Recording calls with the specific intent to defame or harm someone through tortious conduct
The distinction is between your intent and the content of the call. You can record a call in which someone says unflattering things. You cannot record a call for the purpose of committing a crime or tort.
Recording Your Own Phone Calls

Personal Calls
As a Nebraska resident, you can record any personal phone call you participate in. Common scenarios include:
- Recording calls with service providers, contractors, or businesses for your records
- Documenting conversations with ex-spouses or co-parents during custody disputes
- Preserving verbal agreements or promises made over the phone
- Recording threatening or harassing calls as evidence
- Keeping records of important conversations with government agencies
How to Record Phone Calls
Several methods are available for recording phone calls in Nebraska:
- Built-in phone features: Some smartphones have built-in call recording capabilities (availability varies by device manufacturer and carrier)
- Call recording apps: Third-party apps like TapeACall, Rev Call Recorder, and ACR are available for both iOS and Android
- External recording devices: Dedicated phone call recording adapters that connect between your phone and handset
- Speakerphone and external recorder: Placing the call on speakerphone and using a separate audio recorder
- VoIP platform features: Many VoIP platforms (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet) have built-in recording functions
Recording Voicemail Messages
Voicemail messages present a different legal question. A voicemail is a stored communication rather than an intercepted communication. Once a message has been left on your voicemail, you generally own a copy of that recording and can save, replay, or share it. However, accessing someone else's voicemail without authorization may violate federal and state computer fraud statutes.
Business Phone Call Recording
The Employer Exception
Nebraska law provides a narrow exception for employer monitoring. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290(2)(a), an employer on its business premises, a switchboard operator, or an officer, employee, or agent of a communications provider may intercept, disclose, or use a wire communication in the normal course of employment only while engaged in an activity that is a necessary incident to providing its service or to protecting the provider's rights or property. Employers and providers may not use service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical, service-quality, or performance control checks, and only if employees receive reasonable notice of the random-monitoring policy.
Most customer call recording rests on a different rule. A business that is itself a party to a call can record it under the one-party rule in 86-290(2)(c), as long as the recording is not made for a criminal or tortious purpose. In practice:
- A business can record customer service and sales calls its staff take part in under the one-party rule
- Random monitoring of employee calls for quality or performance checks requires reasonable notice to employees of the monitoring policy
- Monitoring for purposes outside the exception, by someone who is not a party to the call, risks violating 86-290
"Normal Course of Business" Limitation
The employer exception applies only to monitoring conducted in the normal course of business. This means:
- The monitoring must be a necessary incident to providing the business's service or protecting its rights or property
- The exception covers an employer on its business premises, a switchboard operator, or a communications provider's agent
- Random monitoring is allowed only for mechanical, service-quality, or performance control checks, after reasonable notice to employees
- Personal calls should generally not be monitored beyond the initial determination that a call is personal
- The scope of monitoring should be proportionate to the business need
An employer who monitors an employee's personal calls extensively, after determining the calls are personal in nature, may exceed the scope of the normal course of business exception.
Best Practices for Business Call Recording
While Nebraska's one-party consent law does not require businesses to notify callers about recording, many businesses choose to provide notice for several practical and legal reasons:
- Interstate compliance: If your business takes calls from people in two-party consent states, providing notice and obtaining consent protects against liability in those jurisdictions
- Customer trust: Transparency about recording builds trust and reduces complaints
- Industry regulations: Some industries (financial services, healthcare) have specific federal requirements for call recording disclosure
- Evidence admissibility: Recordings made with full notice are less likely to face admissibility challenges
Common methods of providing notice include:
- Pre-call automated message ("This call may be recorded for quality and training purposes")
- Verbal disclosure by the representative at the start of the call
- Written notice in contracts, terms of service, or privacy policies
- A periodic beep tone during the call (though this alone may not satisfy disclosure requirements in all jurisdictions)
Interstate Phone Call Recording

The Multi-State Problem
When you are in Nebraska and the person you are calling is in another state, the question of which state's law applies becomes critical. Instead of guessing, you can check both states' rules side by side with our recording consent checker. Nebraska follows one-party consent, but many states require all-party consent. If you call someone in a two-party consent state without their knowledge, you may be legal under Nebraska law but in violation of the other state's law.
Two-Party Consent States to Watch
When calling people in these states, consider informing all parties and obtaining consent:
| State | Key Statute |
|---|---|
| California | Penal Code 632 |
| Connecticut | Gen. Stat. 52-570d |
| Delaware | 11 Del. C. 1335 and 2402 (the two statutes conflict; get everyone's consent to be safe) |
| Florida | Stat. 934.03 |
| Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 |
| Maryland | Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402 |
| Massachusetts | Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99 |
| Montana | Code Ann. 45-8-213 |
| Nevada | NRS 200.620 (all-party for phone calls) |
| New Hampshire | RSA 570-A:2 |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa.C.S. 5704 |
| Washington | RCW 9.73.030 |
Oregon also requires all-party consent, but only for in-person conversations, so it is not on this phone-call list.
Federal Law as a Baseline
Federal wiretap law under 18 U.S.C. 2511 follows a one-party consent model. A recording that complies with federal law is not necessarily legal under all state laws, because states can impose stricter requirements. The federal law sets the floor, not the ceiling, for phone call recording protections.
Practical Guidance for Interstate Calls
The safest approach for regularly recording interstate calls is to adopt a uniform policy of notifying all parties:
- Begin each call with a brief disclosure ("I'd like to record this call for my records. Is that OK?")
- If the other party declines, do not record
- For business calls, use an automated pre-call disclosure message
- Document your consent practices in case a recording is later challenged
Radio Communication Provisions
Nebraska law includes specific provisions for the interception of radio communications, which can apply to the radio portion of cellular calls. The lower penalties apply only to a first offense that intercepts an unscrambled, unencrypted radio communication and is not for an illegal, tortious, or commercial purpose:
- Qualifying first offense, most radio communications: Class I misdemeanor (up to 1 year in jail, up to a $1,000 fine, or both)
- Qualifying first offense, the radio portion of a cellular telephone, public land mobile radio service, or paging service communication: Class III misdemeanor, a lesser penalty than Class I
- Every other interception, including subsequent offenses, interceptions for an illegal, tortious, or commercial purpose, and interception of wire/electronic communications: Class IV felony (up to 2 years in prison, up to a $10,000 fine, or both)
These provisions reflect the original drafting of the statute when analog cellular signals could be easily intercepted by radio scanners. While modern digital encryption has reduced this concern, the statutory framework remains in place.
Criminal Penalties for Illegal Phone Call Recording

Illegally recording phone calls in Nebraska carries serious criminal penalties:
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Illegal interception of wire/electronic communication | Class IV Felony | Up to 2 years prison and 12 months post-release supervision, a $10,000 fine, or both |
| Interception of unencrypted radio communication (1st offense, no illegal, tortious, or commercial purpose) | Class I misdemeanor; Class III misdemeanor if cellular, public land mobile, or paging radio | Up to 1 year jail, a $1,000 fine, or both (Class I) |
| Disclosure or use of illegally intercepted call | Class IV Felony | Up to 2 years prison, a $10,000 fine, or both |
Under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2204.02, most first-time Class IV felony convictions result in probation rather than incarceration. Courts are not required to impose probation, however, if the defendant is serving a consecutive felony sentence, was originally charged with a Class I, IA, IB, IC, ID, II, IIA, III, or IIIA felony, is a habitual offender, or cannot be safely supervised in the community.
Civil Remedies for Illegal Phone Recording
Victims of illegal phone call recording can sue under Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-297, and the court may award:
- Statutory damages: $100 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater, if that exceeds actual damages and profits combined
- Actual damages and profits made by the violator
- Equitable relief: Injunctions to prevent further violations
- Attorney's fees and litigation costs
The statute of limitations for civil claims is two years from the date of discovery. A good faith reliance on a court order, warrant, or statutory authorization is a complete defense.
LB204: Indefinitely Postponed
LB204 (the Biometric Autonomy Liberty Law) was indefinitely postponed by the Nebraska Legislature on April 17, 2026 and did not become law. Nebraska has no BIPA-style biometric privacy statute. Recording a call does not by itself trigger a biometric rule, but a business covered by the Nebraska Data Privacy Act needs a Nebraska consumer's consent before using voiceprints to identify them (Neb. Rev. Stat. 87-1112), unless an exemption applies, such as small businesses, employee data, personal or household use, or fraud prevention (87-1103, 87-1126). The one-party consent rule under section 86-290 continues to govern recording.
Phone Recording Evidence in Nebraska Courts
Admissibility
Phone call recordings made in compliance with Nebraska's one-party consent law are generally admissible in court proceedings. To introduce a phone recording as evidence, you must demonstrate:
- Authentication: The recording is a true and accurate representation of the conversation
- Chain of custody: The recording has been preserved without alteration
- Relevance: The recorded content relates to the issues in the case
- Hearsay analysis: The recorded statements may require a hearsay exception for admissibility
Preservation Best Practices
To maximize the evidentiary value of your phone call recordings:
- Save the original file without editing or converting it
- Preserve metadata (date, time, duration, phone numbers)
- Create backup copies stored in a secure location
- Note the circumstances of the call (who initiated it, the purpose, your location)
- Do not share the recording publicly before consulting with an attorney
More Nebraska 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 Nebraska Recording Laws
More Nebraska Recording Topics
More Nebraska Laws
- Nebraska AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Nebraska Dashcam Laws
- Nebraska Data Privacy Laws
- Nebraska Deepfake Laws
- Nebraska Employee Monitoring Laws
- Nebraska GPS Tracking Laws
- Nebraska Police Bodycam Laws
- Nebraska Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Nebraska without telling the other person?
Yes. Nebraska is a one-party consent state under Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290. You can record any phone call you participate in without notifying the other person. This applies to landline, cell phone, and VoIP calls. The only restriction is that the recording cannot be made for a criminal or tortious purpose.
Is it legal to record a Zoom or Teams call in Nebraska?
Yes, if you are a participant. VoIP and video conferencing platforms are covered by Nebraska's one-party consent law as electronic communications. You can record without informing others, though be aware that many platforms display a notification when recording starts, and participants in two-party consent states may have different rules.
Can a business record phone calls with customers in Nebraska?
Yes, for calls the business takes part in, under the one-party rule in Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290(2)(c). The separate employer monitoring exception in 86-290(2)(a) is narrow: monitoring must be a necessary part of providing the service, and random monitoring of employee calls requires reasonable notice to employees. While Nebraska does not require disclosure, many businesses provide notice for customer trust, interstate compliance, and industry regulation reasons.
What if I call someone in a two-party consent state from Nebraska?
The stricter consent law may apply. If you are in Nebraska calling someone in a state like California, Florida, or Pennsylvania, those states' two-party consent requirements may govern the other party. The safest approach is to inform all parties and obtain consent when making interstate calls to two-party consent states.
What are the penalties for illegally recording a phone call in Nebraska?
Illegally intercepting a wire or electronic communication is a Class IV felony, punishable by up to 2 years in prison, a $10,000 fine, or both. A first offense intercepting unencrypted radio communications, with no illegal, tortious, or commercial purpose, is generally a Class I misdemeanor (up to 1 year jail, a $1,000 fine, or both), except that the radio portion of cellular, public land mobile, or paging communications carries the lesser Class III misdemeanor. In a civil suit, the court may award the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits or statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, and may award attorney's fees.
Updates
Noted that a Class I misdemeanor for a first radio-interception offense allows jail, a fine, or both.
Clarified that the Class IV felony penalty for illegal call interception is prison, a fine, or both, rather than both automatically.
Corrected the statement that no Nebraska consent requirement applies to voiceprints: a business covered by the Nebraska Data Privacy Act needs consent before using voiceprints to identify a consumer, with exemptions for small businesses, employee data, personal or household use, and fraud prevention.
Corrected the business call-recording rules (the employer exception is limited and random monitoring requires notice to employees; customer calls are recorded under the one-party rule), the civil damages rule, the conditions for the radio-interception misdemeanors, and the list of states that require all-party consent for phone calls (adding Nevada and Delaware).
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Named the actual statutory exceptions to mandatory probation for Class IV felony wiretapping convictions, including one added by a 2026 law, in place of a vague reference to unspecified aggravating factors.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the civil statutory-damages figures ($50-$500/$100-$1,000 apply only to a narrow satellite/radio carve-out; the general rule under 86-297(3)(b) is $100/day or $10,000, whichever is greater) and clarified that cellular/cordless phone radio interception -- this page's own subject -- falls under the lesser Class III misdemeanor, not the general Class I classification.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
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.
Nebraska Revised Statutes, Chapter 86: TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
§ 86-290Unlawful acts; penaltyIn forcecited in 18 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in sections 86-271 to 86-295, it is unlawful to: (a) Intentionally intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication; (b) Intentionally use, endeavor to use, or procure 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; (c) Intentionally disclose or endeavor 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 subsection; (d) Intentionally use or endeavor to use 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,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hays v. Hays (Nebraska Court of Appeals 2022)“…to her. We address these arguments, in turn. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290(2)(c) (Reissue 2016), “it is not unlawf…”
- Ades v. Omni Hotels Management Corp. (District Court, C.D. California 2014, 46 F. Supp. 3d 999)“…f the carrier or provider of such communication services.”' Neb.Rev.Stat. § 86-290(2)(a). Based on this provision, Omni co…”
- Lewton Ex Rel. Lewton v. Divingnzzo (District Court, D. Nebraska 2011, 772 F. Supp. 2d 1046)“…7) to exclude the recordings as illegally intercepted under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 86-290(a) (see Doc. 137-16 at p.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nebraska Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, Nebraska Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Nebraska Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
§ 86-297Interception; civil actionIn forcecited in 10 of our articles
(1) Any person whose wire, electronic, or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of sections 86-271 to 86-295 and 86-298 to 86-2,103 may in a civil action recover from the person or entity which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. (2) In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes: (a) Such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; (b) Damages under subsection (3) of this section; and (c) Reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (3)(a) In an action under this section, if the conduct in violation of sections 86-271 to 86-295 and 86-298 to 86-2,103 is the private viewing of a private satellite video communication that is not scrambled or encrypted or if the communication is a radio communication that is transmitted on frequencies allocated for remote pickup broadcast stations under subpart D of 47 C.F.R.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Brumbaugh v. Bendorf (Nebraska Supreme Court 2020, 945 N.W.2d 116)“…warded under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (2018) or Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-297 (Reissue 2014) is addressed to the tria…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nebraska Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026), Nebraska Security Camera Laws: Rules for Homes, Businesses, and HOAs (2026), Nebraska AI Meeting Recording Laws (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)
Nebraska Revised Statutes, Chapter 29: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
§ 29-2204.02Sentence for Class III, IIIA, or IV felony; court; duties; defendant under eighteen years of age; dispositionIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
(1) Except when a term of probation is required by law as provided in subsection (2) of this section or except as otherwise provided in subsection (4) of this section, in imposing a sentence upon an offender for a Class III, IIIA, or IV felony, the court shall: (a) Impose a determinate sentence of imprisonment within the applicable range in section 28-105; and (b) Impose a sentence of post-release supervision, under the jurisdiction of the Office of Probation Administration, within the applicable range in section 28-105. (2) If the criminal offense is a Class IV felony, the court shall impose a sentence of probation unless: (a) The defendant is concurrently or consecutively sentenced to imprisonment for any felony other than another Class IV felony; (b) The defendant was originally charged with a Class I, IA, IB, IC, ID, II, IIA, III, or IIIA felony; (c) The defendant has been deemed a habitual criminal pursuant to section 29-2221; or (d) There are substantial and compelling reasons why the defendant cannot effectively and safely be supervised in the community, including, but not limited to, the criteria in subsections (2) and (3) of section 29-2260.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
Cited in 99 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Baxter (Nebraska Supreme Court 2017, 295 Neb. 496)“…stantial and compelling reasons under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2204.02(2)(c) (Supp. 2015)…”
- State v. Shepherd (Nebraska Court of Appeals 2023)“…hority is an appropriate matter for plain error review. Id. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2204.02 (Reissue 2016) states, in relevant part…”
- State v. Vanness (Nebraska Supreme Court 2018, 300 Neb. 159)“…ts 1, 2, and 3 should have been determinate sentences under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2204.02(1)(a) (Supp. 2015) (Class IV felonies)…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Nebraska Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Privacy Protections (2026), Nebraska Felony Classes and Misdemeanor Penalties (2026)
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE LVIII PUBLIC JUSTICE, CHAPTER 570-A WIRETAPPING AND EAVESDROPPING
§ 570-A:2Interception and Disclosure of Telecommunication or Oral Communications Prohibited.In forcecited in 34 of our articles
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person: (a) Wilfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any telecommunication or oral communication; (b) Wilfully 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: (1) Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in telecommunication, or (2) Such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication, or (3) Such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on premises of any business or other commercial establishment, or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment; or (c) Wilfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 35 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):New Hampshire courts read the felony offense in RSA 570-A:2, I as requiring more than intent to record. Fischer v. Hooper (1999) held wilfully means intentional or reckless disregard for the lawfulness of the conduct, so a good faith belief is a defense. State of New Hampshire v. Adam Mueller (2014) reversed on that mens rea.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Kilgus (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1986, 128 N.H. 577)✓A murder-for-hire middleman agreed to wear a hidden recorder and got the defendant to confirm paying $1,000 to have a man killed; the court held the taping was lawful under RSA 570-A:2, II(d) because one party consented and homicide is an enumerated offense.
- Fischer v. Hooper (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1999, 143 N.H. 585)✓A father secretly taped his ex-wife's calls with their daughter though a guardian ad litem had said both parents must agree; the court held wilfully in RSA 570-A:2, I requires intentional or reckless disregard for the lawfulness of the conduct, and reversed for a new trial.
- State of New Hampshire v. Adam Mueller (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2014, 166 N.H. 65)✓A police-accountability activist recorded three phone calls with a police captain and two school officials without telling them; the court held that instructing the jury on purposely rather than the statute's wilfully was plain error and reversed his wiretapping convictions.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026), ACLU Sues Concord NH Housing Authority Over In-Unit Sensors, New Hampshire Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses)
§ 5704Exceptions to prohibition of interception and disclosure of communicationsIn forcecited in 26 of our articles
It shall not be unlawful and no prior court approval shall be required under this chapter for: (1) An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent or employee of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of wire or electronic communication service. However, no provider of wire or electronic communication service shall utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks. (2) Any investigative or law enforcement officer or any person acting at the direction or request of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication involving suspected criminal activities, including, but not limited to, the crimes enumerated in section 5708 (relating to order authorizing interception of wire, electronic or oral communications), where: (i) (Deleted by amendment).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 126 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (1987) concluded Article I, Section 8 requires a warrant for one party consensual electronic eavesdropping, reading 5704(2) as only exempting that practice, not authorizing it. Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (2008) held 5704(14)(i)(C) permits disclosing a recorded inmate call in any criminal prosecution.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2008, 599 Pa. 1)✓The Commonwealth used a recorded jail phone call between an inmate and his parents at his murder trial; the court held section 5704(14) was not violated because all three knew the call was being recorded, and the contents were properly divulged for a criminal prosecution.
- Commonwealth v. Arrington (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2014, 624 Pa. 506)✓A murder defendant sought to suppress a call the victim recorded, on which he asked repeatedly whether he was being taped and said he did not care; the court addressed whether that amounted to prior consent under section 5704(4) but did not resolve it, finding any error harmless.
- Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1987, 370 Pa. Super. 179)✓Police sent a wired informant into Schaeffer's home to record a marijuana buy without a warrant; the en banc court read section 5704(2) as only exempting participant monitoring from the Wiretap Act, not authorizing it, and held the state constitution still required a warrant.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Pennsylvania Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Felony Penalties (2026), Pennsylvania Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties (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), Washington's AI Deepfake Law (SSB 5886) Takes Effect June 11
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?
Sources and References
- Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290 -- Interception of communications; lawful and unlawful conduct(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-297 -- Civil remedies for unlawful interception(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-2204.02 -- Class IV felony sentencing; mandatory probation(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- LB204 -- Biometric Autonomy Liberty Law(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 -- Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- Neb. Rev. Stat. 87-1112 -- Data Privacy Act sensitive-data consent requirement(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- Neb. Rev. Stat. 87-1103 -- Data Privacy Act applicability(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- Neb. Rev. Stat. 87-1126 -- Data Privacy Act construction and exemptions(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov