New Jersey

New Jersey Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 202613 min read

New Jersey is a one-party consent state for audio recording. Under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d), any participant in a conversation may record it without notifying the other parties, provided the recording is not made for a criminal, tortious, or other injurious purpose. Recording without that consent is a third-degree crime under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3 and creates civil liability under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24.

New Jersey recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
Consent rule	One-party (N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d))
Main statute	N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 through 2A:156A-37 (New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act)
When recording is illegal	Recording a conversation without being a party, or for a criminal/tortious/injurious purpose
Criminal penalty	Third-degree crime: 3 to 5 years prison, fine up to $15,000
Civil penalty	Actual damages or $100/day or $1,000 floor (whichever is higher), plus punitive, plus attorney fees
Hidden cameras	Observation of intimate parts: fourth-degree; recording or disclosing intimate parts: third-degree (N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9)
Recording police	Protected by First Amendment under Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017)

For a deeper look at each topic, jump to the in-depth guides section below.

Recording in-person conversations in New Jersey

The core rule comes from the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, codified at N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 through 2A:156A-37. Section 2A:156A-3 makes it a third-degree crime to purposely intercept, disclose, or use any wire, electronic, or oral communication without authorization. Section 2A:156A-4(d) creates the participant exception: a person who is a party to the communication, or who has the prior consent of one party, may record without notifying the others.

The one critical limit is the tortious-purpose carve-out. The participant exception does not apply if the recording is made "for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of this State or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act." That language is broader than the federal version in 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d), which dropped the "other injurious act" phrase when Congress amended the statute in 1986 (Pub. L. 99-508). New Jersey kept it, so a recording made to harass, extort, or defraud someone loses the participant exception even if the recorder was present in the conversation.

The New Jersey Supreme Court confirmed the related supervisory-approval requirement for law-enforcement consensual interceptions in State v. Worthy, 141 N.J. 368, 661 A.2d 1244 (1995). For ordinary citizens, the rule is simpler: be a party, do not record for an unlawful purpose, and you are covered.

two professionals standing at a city sidewalk corner, one speaking into a smartphone held to the ear while the other holds a notebook

Recording phone calls in New Jersey

The same one-party rule applies to phone calls. Under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d), a participant in a call may record it without telling the other parties. This covers landlines, cell calls, and VoIP. The audio-only coverage of the Wiretap Act means the consent requirement applies to the audio stream; screen-recording a video call is a separate analysis.

Interstate calls require extra attention. Pennsylvania is a two-party consent state under 18 Pa. C.S.A. 5703, and many New Jersey residents and businesses make cross-border calls daily. The conservative rule is to comply with the stricter state's law: for any call that touches Pennsylvania, obtain the other party's consent before recording. New York and Delaware are one-party states, so NJ-NY and NJ-DE calls follow the same one-party rule.

For a detailed breakdown, see New Jersey Phone Call Recording Laws.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

The Wiretap Act covers only audio (aural) interception. Silent video falls outside it entirely. The Appellate Division confirmed this split in State v. Diaz, 308 N.J. Super. 504, 706 A.2d 264 (App. Div. 1998), a nanny-cam case where hidden-camera footage of a caregiver mistreating a child was admitted after the court held that the video portion does not come within the scope of the Act.

Silent video on your own property in common areas is generally not a Wiretap Act problem. The homeowner is a party to conversations at their front door, so a Ring doorbell or porch camera clears the one-party rule for the audio component. The FTC's 2023 enforcement against Amazon Ring (a $5.8 million settlement over human review of customer footage) is a vendor data-handling issue, not a consent question for the homeowner.

Where things become criminal is N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9, the invasion-of-privacy statute. Under subsection (a), observing someone's intimate parts without consent in a place where a reasonable person would not expect to be observed is a fourth-degree crime (up to 18 months). Under subsection (b), recording or reproducing those images without consent is a third-degree crime (3 to 5 years). Under subsection (c), disclosing the recording is also a third-degree crime, with a potential fine ceiling of $30,000 under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-3(c) for sexual or invasive imagery. Property ownership provides no defense. A camera in a bathroom, guest room, or domestic worker's private quarters violates the statute if it captures intimate parts, even if you own the building.

The Diaz court also recognized vicarious parental consent: a parent acting in good faith and on an objectively reasonable belief that recording is necessary in the best interest of a minor child may consent on the child's behalf for Wiretap Act purposes.

glass-walled conference room with figures behind translucent doors

For more on home and business security cameras, see New Jersey Security Camera Laws and New Jersey Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws.

Penalties for illegal recording in New Jersey

Criminal exposure under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3. Unauthorized interception, disclosure, or use of an intercepted communication is each independently a third-degree crime. Under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(a)(3), a third-degree crime carries 3 to 5 years in prison. The fine ceiling under N.J.S.A. 2C:43-3(b)(1) is $15,000. Under N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(e), a first-time third-degree offender benefits from a presumption of non-incarceration, though the court may impose prison if the facts warrant it.

Civil exposure under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24. A victim may sue for (a) actual damages, but not less than $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher; (b) punitive damages; and (c) reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs. Good-faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization is a complete defense, but that defense is practically available only to law enforcement.

Statute	Conduct	Grade	Prison	Fine
N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3	Unauthorized interception, disclosure, or use (audio)	Third-degree crime	3 to 5 years	Up to $15,000
N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24	Civil claim by victim	Civil	N/A	$100/day or $1,000 floor, plus punitive, plus attorney fees
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(a)	Observing intimate parts without consent	Fourth-degree crime	Up to 18 months	Up to $10,000
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(b)	Recording intimate parts without consent	Third-degree crime	3 to 5 years	Up to $15,000
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(c)	Disclosing intimate-image recording	Third-degree crime	3 to 5 years	Up to $30,000 (2C:43-3(c))
P.L.2025, c.40 (criminal)	Deepfake in furtherance of unlawful behavior	Third-degree crime	3 to 5 years	Up to $30,000 (special fine notwithstanding 2C:43-3(b))
P.L.2025, c.40 (civil)	Civil claim for depicted person	Civil	N/A	$1,000 liquidated floor per violation, plus punitive, plus attorney fees

stack of sealed white envelopes with a wax seal visible on the top one

Recording the police in New Jersey

New Jersey is in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017), the Third Circuit held that the First Amendment protects the right to record police officers performing their official duties in public. The right is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Qualified immunity shielded the officers in the underlying 2012-2013 incidents because the right was not yet clearly established, but it is clearly established for any New Jersey officer acting after July 7, 2017.

As a practical matter, a New Jersey officer who arrests or retaliates against someone openly recording police activity in public after that date faces individual Section 1983 liability. The recorder must not interfere with police operations, must not trespass to get closer, and must comply with a lawful safety-based order to step back. None of those limits authorize seizing the phone or arresting the recorder for the act of recording alone.

State law parallels the federal protection. A public police encounter lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy, so the audio is also covered by the one-party-consent rule when the recorder is a participant. Even a bystander typically cannot be prosecuted under the Wiretap Act for recording an officer in public.

For more, see New Jersey Laws on Recording Police.

intercom panel with numbered buttons mounted on an apartment building entrance

Special topics in New Jersey

Deepfake law: P.L.2025, c.40

Governor Phil Murphy signed P.L.2025, c.40 (Assembly Bill A3540, companion S2544) on April 2, 2025. Producing or disseminating deceptive audio or visual media in furtherance of unlawful behavior (harassment, extortion, non-consensual intimate imagery, and similar) is a third-degree crime carrying 3 to 5 years. The statute sets a special fine ceiling of up to $30,000, expressly notwithstanding the standard N.J.S.A. 2C:43-3(b)(1) schedule for third-degree crimes. Knowing or reckless sharing alone is a fourth-degree crime. The civil cause of action carries a $1,000 liquidated floor per violation plus punitive damages, attorney fees, and equitable relief. Exemptions cover satire, parody, news reporting, teaching, and research; a safe harbor applies to platforms that inadvertently distribute the content.

Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act overlay

Congress enacted the TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146, 119th Cong.) on May 19, 2025, criminalizing knowing publication without consent of intimate visual depictions of minors and non-consenting adults, including AI-generated deepfakes. The criminal prohibition was effective immediately. Covered platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of victim notice starting May 19, 2026. New Jersey victims have parallel state and federal remedies: the P.L.2025, c.40 civil claim, a criminal referral under that statute and under N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(c), and the federal platform takedown demand.

Body-worn cameras and footage access

New Jersey law-enforcement officers in covered patrol assignments must use body-worn cameras under N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5 (P.L. 2020, c. 129). Recordings must be retained for at least 180 days, extended to three years for encounters that are the subject of a complaint. AG Directive 2021-5, updated by AG Directive 2022-1, sets the statewide policy framework; AG Directive 2019-4 governs presumptive release of deadly-force or death-in-custody footage.

The New Jersey Supreme Court expanded subject-of-recording access rights in Fuster v. Township of Chatham (Jan. 21, 2025), holding that the Open Public Records Act does not bar disclosure of body-cam footage to the person who is the subject of the recording, even if they were not arrested or charged. If a New Jersey officer with a body camera filmed you, you usually have a viable OPRA request for that footage.

Workplace recording: Wiretap Act and NLRA

A New Jersey employee who is a party to a workplace conversation may record it under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d), provided the recording is not for a criminal or tortious purpose. Under NLRB Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), a blanket no-recording policy is presumptively unlawful under the NLRA unless the employer demonstrates a substantial, narrowly tailored business interest. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) treats surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se violation, but that guidance is narrowly limited to the bargaining table.

N.J.S.A. 34:6B-22 (P.L. 2021, c. 449, effective April 18, 2022) requires employers to give written notice before using a GPS tracking device in a vehicle used by the employee. First violation: up to $1,000; subsequent violations: up to $2,500.

Federal law: ECPA and FCC rules

The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2510-2522) sets a one-party-consent floor under 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) that New Jersey tracks. The historic FCC beep-tone rule at 47 C.F.R. 64.501 was removed effective November 20, 2017, and no longer applies. FCC 24-17 (Feb. 2, 2024) clarifies that AI-generated voice in calls is "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA, requiring prior express consent; a participant recording an AI-cloned-voice scam call may do so under both the federal floor and N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d). FCC 24-24 (the One-to-One Consent Rule) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (mandate April 30, 2025), and is not in force in 2026.

Recent legal developments

April 2, 2025: Governor Murphy signed P.L.2025, c.40 (A3540), the New Jersey deepfake law establishing criminal and civil penalties for production and dissemination of deceptive audio or visual media.
January 21, 2025: New Jersey Supreme Court decided Fuster v. Township of Chatham, expanding body-cam footage access for subjects of recordings under OPRA.
May 19, 2025: Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act signed, adding a parallel federal remedy for non-consensual intimate imagery including deepfakes; platform-compliance deadline May 19, 2026.
November 2025: State Senator Joseph Cryan's two-party-consent proposal reported; did not advance. New Jersey remains one-party.
February 14, 2025: NLRB GC 25-05 rescinded Abruzzo-era policy memos (Stericycle itself unchanged).
June 25, 2025: NLRB GC 25-07 issued, treating surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se NLRA violation.

New Jersey recording laws in depth

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More New Jersey 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 New Jersey attorney.

More New Jersey Laws

Sources and References

N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d)(lis.njleg.state.nj.us).gov
N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3(lis.njleg.state.nj.us).gov
N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(a)(3); N.J.S.A. 2C:43-3(b)(1); N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(e)
N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-24
State v. Diaz, 308 N.J. Super. 504, 706 A.2d 264 (App. Div. 1998)
N.J.S.A. 2C:14-9(a), (b), (c)
P.L.2025, c.40 (A3540 / S2544), supplementing Title 2C of the New Jersey Statutes(pub.njleg.state.nj.us).gov
P.L.2025, c.40 (A3540 / S2544); N.J.S.A. 2C:43-3(b)(1) and (c); N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(a)(3)(pub.njleg.state.nj.us).gov
P.L.2025, c.40 (A3540 / S2544), civil and exemption provisions(pub.njleg.state.nj.us).gov
Assembly Bill A1211 (referred to Assembly Judiciary; did not advance); Sen. Cryan two-party reform proposal (introduced November 2025; did not advance)(newjerseymonitor.com)
Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017)(courtlistener.com)
N.J.S.A. 40A:14-118.5 (P.L. 2020, c. 129); AG Directive 2021-5; AG Directive 2022-1; AG Directive 2019-4(pub.njleg.state.nj.us)
Fuster v. Township of Chatham (N.J. Sup. Ct. Jan. 21, 2025)(njcourts.gov).gov
Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023); NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025); NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025)(nlrb.gov).gov
N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d); 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 5703; N.Y. Penal Law § 250.05; 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)(uscode.house.gov).gov
18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522; 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d); N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d)(uscode.house.gov).gov
FCC 24-17 Declaratory Ruling (CG Docket No. 23-362); 47 U.S.C. § 227(docs.fcc.gov).gov
Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. mandate Apr. 30, 2025)(media.ca11.uscourts.gov).gov
FCC Report and Order, 'Modernizing Common Carrier Rules' (effective Nov. 20, 2017); former 47 C.F.R. § 64.501(federalregister.gov).gov
TAKE IT DOWN Act, S. 146, 119th Cong. (Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025)(congress.gov).gov
FTC v. Ring LLC, FTC Matter No. 2023113 (D.D.C. 2023); 15 U.S.C. § 45 (FTC Act § 5)(ftc.gov).gov
N.J.S.A. 34:6B-22 (P.L. 2021, c. 449)(pub.njleg.state.nj.us)
N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-21
U.S. Dep't of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-7.302; State v. Worthy, 141 N.J. 368, 661 A.2d 1244 (1995)(justice.gov).gov
Kinsella v. Welch, 362 N.J. Super. 143, 827 A.2d 325 (App. Div. 2003)
NJ Attorney General Directive 2021-9, Protocol for Covert Recordings(nj.gov).gov
P.L.2025, c.40 (A3540 / S2544) (deepfake act, signed April 2, 2025)(pub.njleg.gov).gov