New Jersey
New Jersey Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
New Jersey is a one-party consent state under N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4, which means you can legally record any phone call you participate in without notifying the other party. Your participation in the call satisfies the consent requirement for landline, cell, VoIP, and video calls alike.
New Jersey allows you to record your own phone calls without telling the other person. Under N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:156A-4, the state operates under a one-party consent framework for recording wire, oral, and electronic communications. As long as you are a participant in the phone call, you can record it without notifying or obtaining permission from anyone else on the line.
This guide covers everything you need to know about recording phone calls in New Jersey in 2026, including what the law says, how it applies to different types of calls, what happens when you call someone in another state, and how recorded calls can be used as evidence.
What New Jersey Law Says About Recording Phone Calls
The Core Statute: N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:156A-4
New Jersey's wiretapping and electronic surveillance laws are found in Title 2A, Chapter 156A of the New Jersey Statutes Annotated, formally known as the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act. The legislature enacted this law in 1968, and it took effect on January 1, 1969.
The primary statute governing lawful interception is N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:156A-4. Under this section, a person who is not acting under color of law may intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication where that person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties has given prior consent to the interception.
The critical phrase is "where such person is a party to the communication." Because you are always a party to your own phone calls, your own participation satisfies the one-party requirement. You do not need to tell the other person you are recording, and you do not need to play a beep tone or announcement.
Types of Phone Calls Covered
The statute covers all forms of wire and electronic communications. In practical terms, this includes:
- Landline telephone calls placed through traditional copper wire networks
- Cell phone calls made through cellular networks
- VoIP calls placed through services like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Skype, and other internet-based platforms
- Video calls with audio on any platform, including FaceTime and WhatsApp
- Conference calls where multiple participants are on the line
The law does not distinguish between personal calls and business calls. The same one-party consent rule applies regardless of the purpose of the call.
What "Intercept" Means Under NJ Law
The statute uses the term "intercept" to describe the prohibited conduct. Under N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:156A-2, "intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device. This definition is broad enough to cover recording with a smartphone, a dedicated voice recorder, a computer application, or any other tool capable of capturing audio.
Recording your phone call with a smartphone app, an external recorder, or built-in call recording software all fall within the scope of lawful one-party consent recording, as long as you are an active participant in the call.
The Criminal or Tortious Purpose Exception
New Jersey law includes an important limitation that does not exist in every state. Even with one-party consent, the exception does not apply if the call is recorded or used "for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act" or "for the purpose of committing any other injurious act." This means you cannot rely on the one-party consent rule if your goal is extortion, blackmail, harassment, or another purpose meant to injure someone, even if no crime or tort results.
The statute looks at what the recording was made or used for. Recording a call to keep an accurate record of a legitimate concern, like a contract dispute or workplace harassment, is not an injurious purpose on its face. Recording or later using a call to commit a crime, a tort, or another injurious act loses the one-party consent protection.
Can You Record Your Own Phone Calls in New Jersey?
Yes. You have the legal right to record any phone call you participate in. New Jersey's one-party consent law means your own knowledge of and consent to the recording is sufficient. You do not need to:
- Tell the other person you are recording
- Play a beep tone during the call
- Get written or verbal consent from the other party
- Provide any notification before or during the call
This applies whether you are calling someone or receiving a call. The only requirement is that you are an active participant in the conversation being recorded.
What You Cannot Do
While you can freely record your own calls, the law draws a clear line at recording conversations you are not part of. The following activities are illegal under N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:156A-3:
- Wiretapping someone else's phone line to listen to or record their calls
- Using a listening device to capture a phone call between two other people
- Asking a third party to record a call you are not involved in, without consent from at least one participant
- Intercepting electronic communications such as emails, text messages, or data transmissions without authorization
Even if you have access to the phone (for example, a family plan where you pay the bill), you cannot record calls made by other people on that phone unless you are a party to those calls or have consent from at least one participant.
Recording Phone Calls Across State Lines
Why This Matters
The United States does not have a single, uniform recording consent law. Each state sets its own rules. When you place a call from New Jersey to someone in another state, the question becomes: which state's law applies?
The General Rule
No single rule decides which state's law governs an interstate call. Which law applies depends on where a case is brought and on that court's choice-of-law rules. Some courts have applied the law of the state where the recording was made: Pennsylvania's Superior Court, for example, applied New York's one-party law to a call recorded in New York. But if you are in New Jersey (one-party consent) and you call someone in Pennsylvania (all-party consent), the person in Pennsylvania may still try to bring charges or a lawsuit under Pennsylvania law, even though the recording would be legal under New Jersey law. Once you enter New Jersey and the other state, our recording consent checker will show the two states' rules side by side.
This is especially relevant for New Jersey residents because Pennsylvania borders New Jersey and is an all-party consent state. Many New Jersey residents regularly communicate with people in Pennsylvania for work, family, or business purposes.
Two-Party Consent States to Watch
These states require every party's consent to record a phone call, or have conflicting statutes that make getting everyone's consent the safe course:
| State | Key Statute |
|---|---|
| California | Penal Code 632, 632.7 |
| Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d (phone calls; enforced through civil liability) |
| Delaware | 11 Del. C. 1335(a)(4) conflicts with 11 Del. C. 2402(c)(4); unresolved, so get everyone's consent |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. 934.03 |
| Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 |
| Maryland | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402 |
| Massachusetts | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99 |
| Montana | Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213 |
| Nevada | Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620 (phone calls) |
| New Hampshire | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 570-A:2 |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa.C.S. 5703 |
| Washington | Wash. Rev. Code 9.73.030 |
Oregon requires all-party consent for in-person conversations but not for phone calls.
Best Practice for Interstate Calls
When calling someone in a two-party consent state, the safest approach is to inform the other party that you are recording. A simple statement like "I am recording this call for my records" at the beginning of the conversation greatly reduces your risk of liability. If the other person objects, you can either stop recording or end the call.
Federal Law: Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control Act
Federal wiretapping law under 18 U.S.C. 2511 also follows a one-party consent framework. Federal law applies alongside state law, so a recording must satisfy both. New Jersey's participant exception is at least as strict as the federal one in 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d), because New Jersey also bars recording for any other injurious purpose, so a call recording that complies with New Jersey law generally complies with federal law too.
Business Phone Call Recording in New Jersey
Employer Recording of Business Calls
New Jersey businesses can record phone calls for legitimate business purposes, including:
- Quality assurance and customer service monitoring
- Training purposes to coach employees on call handling
- Compliance documentation for regulated industries like finance and healthcare
- Dispute resolution to maintain accurate records of verbal agreements
Under the one-party consent framework, a business needs the prior consent of one party to the call. An employer listening in is not itself a party, so the usual route is the employee's advance consent, for example through a written call-monitoring policy, or telling the caller and letting them decide whether to stay on the line. An employer that secretly records calls without any party's consent risks violating N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:156A-3.
Notice Requirements for Businesses
While New Jersey law does not require businesses to notify callers about recording, many businesses choose to provide notice as a best practice. Common methods include:
- A recorded announcement at the beginning of the call ("This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes")
- A periodic beep tone during the call
- Written disclosure in service agreements or terms of service
- Verbal notice from the employee at the start of the conversation
Federal law under 18 U.S.C. 2511 also applies to interstate calls and follows the same one-party consent framework. Note: 47 CFR 64.501, a former FCC rule on telephone recording, was removed from the Code of Federal Regulations in 2017 and is no longer in force.
Employee Rights When Being Recorded
New Jersey employees have the right to record their own phone calls at work under the one-party consent law. This includes calls with supervisors, HR representatives, clients, and coworkers. However, employers may have internal policies that restrict or prohibit recording. Violating an employer's recording policy can result in disciplinary action or termination, even though the recording itself is legal under state law.
New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), codified at N.J. Stat. Ann. 34:19-1 et seq., prohibits retaliation against employees who disclose or threaten to disclose, testify about, or object to employer activities they reasonably believe violate the law. CEPA protects that reporting and objecting, not the act of recording itself, though a lawful recording can be evidence supporting a CEPA claim.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) provides additional protection. Under the NLRB's current standard set in Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), workplace rules are assessed from the perspective of an employee who might reasonably see the rule as restricting protected activity, and such a rule is presumptively unlawful unless the employer proves it advances a legitimate and substantial business interest that a more narrowly tailored rule could not serve. Stericycle remains the Board's standard for judging workplace rules, though the current Board has signaled it may revisit it. Overly broad no-recording policies can violate Section 7 of the NLRA when they would reasonably deter employees from engaging in protected concerted activity.
Recording Phone Calls for Evidence in New Jersey
Admissibility in Court
Phone call recordings made in compliance with New Jersey's one-party consent law are generally admissible as evidence in both criminal and civil proceedings. To use a recording as evidence, you typically need to establish:
- Authentication: Prove the recording is genuine, unaltered, and accurately represents the conversation that took place
- Relevance: Show the recording relates to the issues being decided in the case
- Chain of custody: Demonstrate how the recording has been stored and handled since it was made
- Foundation testimony: Provide testimony from a person who can identify the voices on the recording
New Jersey Rule of Evidence 803(b)(1) allows statements by a party opponent to be admitted, which means recordings of the other party's own words are often admissible regardless of hearsay rules.
Criminal Cases
In criminal proceedings, illegally obtained recordings are typically inadmissible under New Jersey law. If you record a phone call without being a party to it and without consent, the recording cannot be used as evidence. The person who made the illegal recording may also face criminal charges under N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:156A-3.
Civil Cases
In civil cases, legally recorded phone calls can serve as evidence in contract disputes, harassment claims, personal injury cases, and family law matters. New Jersey courts have broad discretion in determining the admissibility of recordings, weighing their probative value against any potential for unfair prejudice.
Family Court
Recordings are frequently used in New Jersey family court proceedings, including custody disputes and divorce cases. Family courts generally accept legally obtained recordings as evidence. However, recordings obtained through illegal means (such as recording your children's phone calls with the other parent without being a party to the call) may be excluded and could result in adverse findings against you.
Best Practices for Recording Evidence
If you plan to use a phone call recording as evidence in a New Jersey court:
- Keep the original recording file completely unedited
- Note the date, time, duration, and participants of the call immediately after recording
- Store the original file in a secure location with backup copies
- Do not share the recording unnecessarily before presenting it in court
- Consult with an attorney about proper procedures for introducing the recording as evidence
- Be prepared to testify about the circumstances under which the recording was made
Penalties for Illegal Phone Call Recording in New Jersey
Criminal Penalties
Illegally recording a phone call in New Jersey is a crime of the third degree under N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:156A-3. Under New Jersey's criminal code, crimes of the third degree carry:
| Classification | Potential Penalty |
|---|---|
| Crime of the Third Degree | 3 to 5 years imprisonment, up to $15,000 fine |
New Jersey treats third-degree crimes seriously. Unlike some states where illegal recording is a misdemeanor, New Jersey classifies it at the same level as many theft and assault offenses.
Civil Liability
Under N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:156A-24, victims of illegal recording may sue for:
- Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100 for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher
- Punitive damages
- Attorney's fees and other litigation costs
The statute does not list injunctions or other equitable relief as a remedy.
The civil remedy is available in addition to any criminal prosecution. This means a person who illegally records your phone call could face both prison time and a civil lawsuit.
AI Transcription and Phone Call Recording
AI-powered transcription services and call recording tools have become widespread. Services like Otter.ai, Fireflies.ai, and built-in transcription features in platforms like Zoom and Microsoft Teams can automatically record and transcribe phone calls.
In New Jersey, using these tools follows the same one-party consent rules as any other recording method. If you are a party to the call, you can use an AI tool to record and transcribe it without notifying the other participants. However, if the call involves participants in two-party consent states, you should notify all participants before activating AI recording or transcription features.
Some AI tools join calls as a separate "participant" (appearing as a bot). While this does not change the legal analysis in New Jersey, it may alert the other party to the recording. Review the settings of any AI transcription tool to understand how it appears to other call participants.
New Jersey's 2025 deepfake law (P.L. 2025, c. 40) also applies to AI-generated audio. Creating, sharing, or using a realistic fake recording of someone's voice to commit or further a crime or offense, such as harassment or fraud, or knowing someone else will use it that way, is a crime of the third degree with a fine of up to $30,000, and the person depicted can sue. This law targets fabricated recordings, not legitimate AI transcription of actual conversations.
New Jersey Recording Laws by Topic
Phone Call Recording | Audio Recording | Video Recording | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras
Back to New Jersey Recording Laws
More New Jersey Recording Topics
More New Jersey Laws
- New Jersey AI Meeting Recording Laws
- New Jersey Dashcam Laws
- New Jersey Data Privacy Laws
- New Jersey Deepfake Laws
- New Jersey Employee Monitoring Laws
- New Jersey GPS Tracking Laws
- New Jersey Police Bodycam Laws
- New Jersey Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to record a phone call in New Jersey without telling the other person?
Yes. New Jersey is a one-party consent state under N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:156A-4. You can record any phone call you participate in without informing or getting permission from the other person on the line.
Can I record a phone call from New Jersey to someone in Pennsylvania?
You should inform the Pennsylvania participant before recording. Pennsylvania is an all-party consent state under 18 Pa.C.S. 5703. No single rule decides which state's law governs an interstate call, and recording without the Pennsylvania participant's consent could expose you to a claim under Pennsylvania law.
Can my employer record my work phone calls in New Jersey?
Yes, if a party to the call consents. Your employer can record business calls when the employee on the line has agreed to it in advance (for example, through a written monitoring policy) or when the caller is told and stays on the line. An employer listening in on calls without any party's consent risks violating N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:156A-3.
Can a recorded phone call be used as evidence in New Jersey court?
Yes. Phone call recordings made in compliance with New Jersey's one-party consent law are generally admissible in criminal, civil, and family court proceedings. The recording must be authenticated as genuine and relevant to the case.
What is the penalty for illegally recording a phone call in New Jersey?
Illegally recording a phone call is a crime of the third degree under N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:156A-3, punishable by 3 to 5 years imprisonment and up to $15,000 in fines. You can also face civil liability under N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:156A-24, with minimum damages of $1,000 plus attorney fees.
Updates
Replaced a dead CEPA link with the statute on the Legislature's site and stated the NLRB Stericycle presumption and rebuttal test.
We corrected the interstate-call rule (no rule says the stricter state's law always applies), added Nevada and Delaware to the list of states where every party should consent to a recorded call, clarified that an employer needs a party's consent to monitor calls, fixed the civil damages list, and narrowed the deepfake description to the statute's crime-or-offense element. We clarified that our consent checker shows both states' rules side by side rather than deciding which law governs an interstate call, corrected the description of New Jersey's CEPA to say it protects reporting and objecting to unlawful conduct rather than recording, and softened an overstatement that announcing a recording eliminates liability.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
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.
New Jersey Statutes (Unannotated)
§ 2A:156A-3Interception, disclosure, use of wire, electronic, oral communication; violationIn forcecited in 14 of our articles
3. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this act, any person who: a. Purposely intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication; or b. Purposely discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or c. Purposely uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; shall be guilty of a crime of the third degree. Subsections b. and c. of this section shall not apply to the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, that has become common knowledge or public information.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at lis.njleg.state.nj.us
Cited in 35 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Sugar (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1980, 84 N.J. 1)“…s, or both. 18 U.S.C.A. § 2511 (l)(a); N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3a. The disclosure or use of illegally in…”
- State v. Minter (Supreme Court of New Jersey 1989, 116 N.J. 269)“…orbids anyone to intercept any wire or oral communication, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3, and defines "intercept" as "the aural…”
- Cacciarelli v. Boniface (New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division 1999, 325 N.J. Super. 133)“…w Jersey Wire Taping and Electronics and Surveillance Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-3 it provides: That any person who a)…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Jersey Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, New Jersey Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, New Jersey Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 52 (Civil Actions), Chapter 925
§ 52-570dAction for illegal recording of private telephonic communications.In forcecited in 56 of our articles
(a) No person shall use any instrument, device or equipment to record an oral private telephonic communication unless the use of such instrument, device or equipment (1) is preceded by consent of all parties to the communication and such prior consent either is obtained in writing or is part of, and obtained at the start of, the recording, or (2) is preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning and is part of the communication by the recording party, or (3) is accompanied by an automatic tone warning device which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at intervals of approximately fifteen seconds during the communication while such instrument, device or equipment is in use.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 22 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp. (1998) held section 52-570d creates a cause of action unknown at common law that is strictly construed, and does not reach a third party's rerecording of an already illegal tape. Jezouit v. Malloy (2019) held the statute does not waive the state's sovereign immunity from suit.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp. (Connecticut Appellate Court 1998, 47 Conn. App. 764)✓A girlfriend secretly taped a radio employee's call, and a coworker re-recorded that tape and used it to get him fired. The court held section 52-570d, strictly construed, bars taping a private call but not a third party's re-recording of an already illegal tape.
- Jezouit v. Malloy (Connecticut Appellate Court 2019, 193 Conn. App. 576)“…his complaint because (1) he brought his claim pursuant to General Statutes § 52-570d, which he contends waives sovereign imm…”
- State v. Skok (Supreme Court of Connecticut 2015)“…on without the consent of all parties to the communication. General Statutes § 52-570d (a) prohibits the use of ‘‘any instrume…”
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 Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?, Can You Record ICE Agents? Know Your Rights by State (2026)
Florida Statutes
§ 934.03Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.In forcecited in 53 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who:(a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (b) 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:1. Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 74 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Walls (1978) held that recording an in-home oral communication without the consent of all parties violated section 934.03 and required suppression, and State v. Inciarrano (1985) held the statute protects only communications uttered with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Walls (Supreme Court of Florida 1978, 356 So. 2d 294)✓An extortion victim secretly recorded threats made to him in his own home; the court held that was a protected oral communication, that recording it without every party's consent violated Section 934.03, and that Section 934.06 barred using the tape as evidence.
- SHARRON TASHA FORD v. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2021)“…ng oral communications in violation of the wiretap statute, section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2009), and for obstructing without vio…”
- State v. Calhoun (Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida 1984, 7 Fla. Supp. 2d 3)“…hall not be violated” . . . (emphasis mine) Furthermore, section 934.03, Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful for *6 any person (…”
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), Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (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)
Montana Code Annotated, Title 45
§ 45-8-213Privacy In CommunicationsIn forcecited in 51 of our articles
45-8-213. Privacy in communications. (1) Except as provided in 69-6-104, a person commits the offense of violating privacy in communications if the person knowingly or purposely: (a) with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, or injure, communicates with a person by electronic communication and threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of the person or makes repeated use of obscene, lewd, or profane language or repeated lewd or lascivious suggestions; (b) uses an electronic communication to attempt to extort money or any other thing of value from a person or to disturb by repeated communications the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of a person at the place where the communications are received; (c) records or causes to be recorded a conversation by use of a hidden electronic or mechanical device that reproduces a human conversation without the knowledge of all parties to the conversation; (d) with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, or injure or to obtain money or other valuable consideration, publishes, distributes, or discloses real or digitally fabricated printed or electronic photographs, pictures, images, or…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mca.legmt.gov
Cited in 23 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Dugan (2013) struck the statute's prima facie intent clause as overbroad. State v. Brown (1988) noted the statute still bars recording without all participants' permission and rejected an overbreadth attack on its public-official exception. State v. DuBray (2003) found no violation where the defendant knew of the recording.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Smith (Montana Supreme Court 2004, 322 Mont. 206)✓A man who phoned threats to kill his estranged wife's boyfriend argued he should have been charged under section 45-8-213(1)(a) instead of assault with a weapon. The court held the two statutes punish different conduct, so the charge was within prosecutorial discretion.
- State v. Dugan (Montana Supreme Court 2013, 369 Mont. 39)“…rbroad, the Court today strikes the prima facie language in § 45-8-213, MCA. However, a narrow application would be…”
- In re C.S. (Montana Supreme Court 1984, 210 Mont. 144)“…n of privacy in communication, a misdemeanor as provided in Section 45-8-213, MCA. The facts underlying the offense were…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Phone Call Recording Laws, Montana Recording Laws (2026): Announcement Exception and Penalties, Montana Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses)
§ 5703Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communicationsIn forcecited in 59 of our articles
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he: (1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication; (2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or (3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 121 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Brachbill (1989) held Section 5703(1) is not limited to interceptions made with an intercepting device, so an officer who listened on a telephone extension without the prior approval Section 5704(2)(ii) requires violated the section, and the testimony had to be suppressed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1987, 370 Pa. Super. 179)“…and other electronic interceptions of communications, see 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, carved out limited exceptions to these…”
- Commonwealth v. Bennett (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 1976, 245 Pa. Super. 457)“…ode, Act of Dec. 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1 et seq. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, as amended Dec. 27, 1974, P.L. 1007, N…”
- Commonwealth v. Brachbill (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1989, 520 Pa. 533)✓A state trooper listened on an extension phone to a call between a former inmate and a guard charged with abusing him; the court held section 5703 bars any willful interception, not only one using an intercepting device, so the trooper's testimony should have been suppressed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Oregon Phone Call Recording Laws: Split Consent Rules and Penalties, Pennsylvania Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Pennsylvania Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Felony Penalties (2026)
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 I Record My Boss Harassing Me? State-by-State Legal Guide (2026), How to Detect and Block Listening Devices in Your Home (2026), How to Record a Phone Call on Android or iOS Without an App (2026)
Sources and References
- N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:156A-4 - Lawful Interception Activities(law.justia.com)
- N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:156A-3 - Prohibited Interception of Communications(law.justia.com)
- N.J. Stat. Ann. 2A:156A-24 - Civil Liability for Violations(law.justia.com)
- N.J.S.A. 34:19-3 - Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA), retaliatory action prohibited(lis.njleg.state.nj.us).gov
- Federal Wiretap Act - 18 U.S.C. 2511(law.cornell.edu)
- National Labor Relations Act(nlrb.gov).gov
- Governor Murphy Signs Deepfake Legislation (P.L. 2025, c. 40)(nj.gov).gov