New York
New York Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
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. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
New York is a one-party consent state: audio recording of any conversation you participate in is legal without notifying other parties, under the eavesdropping law, N.Y. Penal Law 250.05, and its definitions in Penal Law 250.00. Secretly recording a conversation you are not part of and not present for, or tapping a call you are not on, without any participant's consent, is eavesdropping, a Class E felony under N.Y. Penal Law 250.05, punishable by up to four years in prison.
This rule comes from New York's eavesdropping offense, Penal Law 250.05, which uses the definitions in N.Y. Penal Law Section 250.00. Those definitions require the consent of only one party, which is what makes New York a one-party consent state. The sections below cover exactly what that statute prohibits, the criminal and civil penalties for violations, how recordings are treated as evidence in court, and the pending legislation that could change these rules.
New York One-Party Consent Law Explained
The Core Statute: Penal Law Section 250.00
New York's audio recording framework is built on the definitions in Penal Law Section 250.00. This statute defines three types of prohibited interception:
Wiretapping is the intentional overhearing or recording of a telephonic or telegraphic communication by a person other than the sender or receiver, without the consent of either the sender or receiver, using any instrument, device, or equipment.
Mechanical overhearing of a conversation is the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party, by a person not present, using any instrument, device, or equipment.
Intercepting or accessing an electronic communication is the intentional acquiring, receiving, collecting, overhearing, or recording of an electronic communication without the consent of the sender or intended receiver.
Penal Law Section 250.05 then makes it the crime of eavesdropping to unlawfully engage in any of these three activities. The word "unlawfully" means the activity was not specifically authorized under Article 700 or Article 705 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which govern court-issued eavesdropping warrants.
How New York Defines "Consent"
New York's statute does not require written or verbal consent. The consent of one party to the communication, which can be your own, is enough, and no additional notice or agreement from the other parties is necessary under state law. This applies whether you are recording your own phone calls or in-person conversations, using a voice recorder, smartphone app, or any other device. A third party can also record on your behalf if you consent, since you are the participant whose consent the statute requires.
The law draws a clear line between recording your own conversations (legal) and secretly recording other people's conversations or calls when you are neither a participant nor present and no participant consents (illegal eavesdropping). This is different from two-party consent states like California, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, where every participant must agree before a recording can begin.
Types of Audio Recording Covered
In-Person Conversations
The "mechanical overhearing" definition in Section 250.00 covers in-person audio recording. You cannot legally record a face-to-face conversation when you are not a participant and no participant has consented, such as planting a recording device and leaving the area, or using a hidden device to listen to conversations in a location where you have no right to be.
Telephone and VoIP Calls
The "wiretapping" definition covers landline calls, cell calls, and VoIP calls through platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and Skype. As a participant in the call, your knowledge of the recording satisfies the consent requirement.
Electronic Communications
Section 250.00 also covers electronic communications, including text-based and data transmissions. The interception of electronic communications without the consent of the sender or intended receiver falls under the eavesdropping statute.
Voicemail and Stored Communications
Accessing someone else's voicemail or stored audio messages without authorization may violate both state and federal law. The federal Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. 2701) prohibits unauthorized access to stored electronic communications and works alongside New York's state provisions.
Criminal Penalties for Illegal Audio Recording
New York treats illegal audio recording as a serious criminal matter. The penalties escalate based on the specific offense.
Eavesdropping: Class E Felony (Penal Law 250.05)
Penal Law Section 250.05 makes eavesdropping a Class E felony. Under New York's sentencing guidelines:
- First-time offenders face an indeterminate sentence with a maximum of 4 years in state prison
- Second felony offenders face an indeterminate sentence with a maximum of 3 to 4 years and a minimum of half the maximum
- Courts may impose an alternative definite sentence of up to 1 year if an indeterminate sentence would be unduly harsh
- Fines of up to $5,000 may be imposed
A Class E felony conviction also creates a permanent criminal record that can affect employment, housing, and professional licensing.
Possession of Eavesdropping Devices: Class A Misdemeanor (Penal Law 250.10)
Penal Law Section 250.10 makes it a Class A misdemeanor to possess any instrument, device, or equipment designed for, adapted to, or commonly used in wiretapping or mechanical overhearing when the circumstances show an intent to use the device illegally. Penalties include:
- Up to 364 days in jail
- Fines up to $1,000
- Probation of up to 3 years
The "intent" element is critical. Owning a voice recorder is not illegal. Possessing a device specifically designed for covert surveillance with the intent to eavesdrop is what triggers this offense.
Failure to Report Wiretapping: Class B Misdemeanor (Penal Law 250.15)
Penal Law Section 250.15 makes it a Class B misdemeanor for a telephone or telegraph corporation to fail to report wiretapping. The statute applies to the company itself: a corporation that has knowledge of unlawful wiretapping on its lines and does not report it to an appropriate law enforcement officer or agency commits the offense. Because the defendant is a corporation, the practical penalty is:
- A criminal fine (a corporation cannot be jailed)
- Regulatory scrutiny from the Public Service Commission
Penalty Summary Table
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eavesdropping | PL 250.05 | Class E Felony | Up to 4 years in prison |
| Possession of eavesdropping devices | PL 250.10 | Class A Misdemeanor | Up to 364 days in jail |
| Failure to report wiretapping (telephone/telegraph corporation) | PL 250.15 | Class B Misdemeanor | Criminal fine (corporate defendant) |
Civil Liability for Illegal Audio Recording
New York's eavesdropping law is criminal only. Penal Law 250.05 does not give a person who was illegally recorded a right to sue, and no other New York statute attaches a civil damages claim to it.
The civil remedy is federal. Under 18 U.S.C. section 2520, a person whose call or conversation was illegally intercepted can sue, and the court may award:
- Actual damages, or statutory damages of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater
- Punitive damages in appropriate cases
- Attorney's fees and litigation costs
- Injunctive or other equitable relief
A federal civil suit is separate from any criminal prosecution, so a victim can report the recording to police and also sue over it.
Audio Recordings as Evidence in New York Courts
General Admissibility
Audio recordings made legally under New York's one-party consent law are generally admissible as evidence in court proceedings. The offering party must authenticate the recording (show it is genuine and has not been altered), establish its relevance, and identify the speakers, and a court may require that the full recording, not just selected portions, be made available.
The Exclusionary Rule: CPLR 4506
CPLR Section 4506 establishes that evidence obtained through illegal eavesdropping is generally inadmissible in New York courts. This exclusionary rule applies to:
- Criminal trials and proceedings
- Civil trials and proceedings
- Administrative hearings
- Any other legal proceeding
An aggrieved party can file a motion to suppress eavesdropping evidence. Under CPLR 4506, a person qualifies as "aggrieved" if they are:
- A sender or receiver of a telephonic or telegraphic communication that was intentionally overheard or recorded without consent
- A party to a conversation that was intentionally overheard or recorded without the consent of at least one participant
- A person against whom the overhearing or recording was directed
Exception: Evidence Against the Eavesdropper
There is one important exception to the exclusionary rule. Illegally obtained recordings are admissible in proceedings against the person who committed the eavesdropping. If someone illegally records your conversation, that recording can be used as evidence to prosecute them or hold them civilly liable. An aggrieved party who wants a recording excluded generally must raise the issue in a motion to suppress before trial.
Court-Authorized Eavesdropping: Article 700
New York law permits audio recording and interception of communications by law enforcement when authorized by a court order. Criminal Procedure Law Article 700 allows district attorneys and the Attorney General to apply for an eavesdropping warrant, but only for investigations of specific serious "designated offenses," including murder, kidnapping, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, and drug trafficking. A warrant must identify the person and communications to be intercepted and is generally limited to 30 days, with extensions possible.
Federal Law and New York Audio Recording
The Federal Wiretap Act
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2511) follows a one-party consent model, which aligns with New York's approach. Under federal law, recording a conversation is legal as long as at least one party consents. New York's one-party rule matches the federal baseline in most cases, but federal law makes even a participant's recording illegal if it is made to commit a crime or a tort, a limit New York's statute does not contain.
The Stored Communications Act
The federal Stored Communications Act (18 U.S.C. 2701) prohibits unauthorized access to stored electronic communications. This statute applies when someone accesses another person's voicemail, saved audio files, or cloud-stored recordings without permission.
When Federal and State Law Conflict
Federal wiretap law sets a floor for privacy protections. States can impose stricter requirements but cannot allow less protection than the federal standard. Since New York and federal law both follow one-party consent, they rarely conflict for recordings made within New York, apart from the federal bar on recording to commit a crime or tort.
However, when a New York recording involves someone in a stricter state (such as a two-party consent state), that state's law may apply to that interaction, since courts do not follow one fixed rule on which state's law governs.
Recording Across State Lines
New York borders several states with different recording consent laws, making cross-border recording a common concern for New York residents.
Neighboring States and Their Consent Requirements
| State | Consent Requirement | Key Statute |
|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | All-party consent for phone calls; one-party for in-person conversations | Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d (civil, phone calls); 53a-187 to 53a-189 (criminal) |
| Massachusetts | Two-party consent | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99 |
| New Jersey | One-party consent | N.J. Stat. 2A:156A-4 |
| Pennsylvania | Two-party consent | 18 Pa.C.S. 5703 |
| Vermont | One-party in practice | No wiretap statute; rules come from case law |
Best Practices for Cross-Border Recording
When you are in New York and calling or communicating with someone in a two-party consent state, that state's law may apply to the call, and courts do not follow one fixed rule on which state's law governs. To protect yourself:
- Determine where the other party is located before recording
- If the other party is in Connecticut, Massachusetts, or Pennsylvania, consider informing them that the call is being recorded
- Get explicit verbal consent at the start of the call when in doubt
- Document the consent if possible (the recording itself captures it once consent is given verbally)
Pending Legislation: Senate Bill S5070
Senate Bill S5070 would amend the definition of "wiretapping" in Penal Law 250.00(1), which covers phone and telegraph communications. It would replace the one-party consent language with a requirement that the person recording expressly tell all other parties that the call is being recorded. S5070 is a reintroduction of a bill that has failed repeatedly since 2018.
A companion bill, Senate Bill S5077, would amend the same definition to require the consent of both the sender and the receiver. Neither bill changes the separate rule for in-person conversations, and both keep the definition's existing wording that wiretapping is done by "a person other than a sender or receiver," so how far either would reach a participant's own recording is not clear from the text.
Both bills have been reintroduced across multiple legislative sessions without passing. As of mid-2026, both remain in the Codes Committee and New York continues to operate as a one-party consent state. However, the repeated introduction of these bills signals ongoing legislative interest in changing the current framework.
AI Recording and Transcription Tools
The rise of AI-powered recording and transcription tools raises new considerations under New York's audio recording laws.
Legal Status of AI Recording Tools in New York
Because New York follows one-party consent, you can use AI meeting bots, transcription services, and wearable voice recorders to capture conversations you participate in, the same as any other recording device.
Practical Considerations
The New York City Bar Association's Formal Opinion 2025-6 addressed ethical issues related to AI recording and transcription. While focused on attorney ethics, the guidance applies broadly:
- Data security matters. AI services may store recordings on third-party servers. Understand where your audio data goes, how long it is retained, and who has access.
- Review transcripts for accuracy. AI transcription is not perfect. Errors in automated transcripts could be problematic if the transcript is later used as evidence.
- Consider notice even when not required. While one-party consent means you do not have to disclose AI recording, doing so as a courtesy can maintain professional relationships and avoid disputes.
Common Scenarios and Legal Analysis
Can I Record a Conversation With My Lawyer?
The attorney-client privilege protects the contents of a conversation with your own lawyer regardless of whether it is recorded. You can record it under the same one-party consent rule that applies to any other conversation you participate in, though some attorneys have ethical or practical objections to being recorded and may ask you not to.
Can I Record a Conversation in a Restaurant or Public Place?
Yes, if you are part of the conversation. Recording your own conversations in restaurants, cafes, or other public places is legal under the one-party rule, because you are a participant.
More New York Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism and Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant Recording | Dashcam Laws | School Recording | Medical Recording
Back to New York Recording Laws
More New York Recording Topics
More New York Laws
- New York AI Meeting Recording Laws
- New York Dashcam Laws
- New York Data Privacy Laws
- New York Deepfake Laws
- New York Employee Monitoring Laws
- New York GPS Tracking Laws
- New York Police Bodycam Laws
- New York Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to audio record a conversation in New York without telling the other person?
Yes. New York is a one-party consent state under its eavesdropping law, Penal Law Section 250.05, and the definitions in Section 250.00. As a participant in the conversation, your own knowledge of the recording satisfies the consent requirement. You do not need to inform or get permission from the other person. This applies to both in-person conversations and phone calls.
What are the penalties for illegally recording someone in New York?
Eavesdropping is a Class E felony under Penal Law 250.05, carrying up to 4 years in state prison for a first offense. Possession of eavesdropping devices with intent to use them illegally is a Class A misdemeanor with up to 364 days in jail. New York's eavesdropping law does not itself give victims a right to sue, but the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2520, lets a person whose conversation was illegally intercepted sue for actual or statutory damages, punitive damages in appropriate cases, and attorney fees.
Can an illegally recorded conversation be used as evidence in a New York court?
Generally, no. CPLR Section 4506 makes illegally obtained recordings inadmissible in both criminal and civil proceedings. However, there is one exception: an illegally obtained recording can be used as evidence against the person who made the illegal recording.
Does New York's one-party consent law apply to phone calls with people in other states?
New York's one-party consent law governs recordings made within New York. However, if you call someone in a two-party consent state like Connecticut, Massachusetts, or Pennsylvania, that state's law may also apply, because courts do not follow one fixed rule on which state's law governs an interstate call. The safest approach is to inform the other party and get consent when calling someone in an all-party consent state.
Could New York become a two-party consent state?
Pending legislation (Senate Bills S5070 and S5077) would tighten the consent language in New York's wiretapping definition for phone calls if enacted; neither bill changes the rule for in-person conversations. Both bills have been reintroduced repeatedly since 2018 without passing. As of 2026, both remain in committee and New York continues to operate under one-party consent.
Updates
Narrowed the eavesdropping description to recording a conversation you are neither part of nor present for, or tapping a call you are not on, as Penal Law 250.00 defines it; noted that federal statutory damages under 18 U.S.C. 2520 are awarded at the court's discretion; removed the suggestion that the stricter state's law governs interstate calls.
Corrected the civil-remedy section (New York's eavesdropping law gives no right to sue; the remedy is the federal Wiretap Act, which does provide statutory damages), the jail cap for possessing eavesdropping devices (364 days), the second-felony sentence range, the Connecticut and Vermont entries in the neighboring-states table, and the descriptions of pending bills S5070 and S5077, and noted the federal bar on recording to commit a crime or tort.
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
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 York Penal Law
§ 250.05EavesdroppingIn forcecited in 15 of our articles
Eavesdropping. A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping, mechanical overhearing of a conversation, or intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication. Eavesdropping is a class E felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov
Cited in 39 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):New York courts recognize a vicarious consent exception to the eavesdropping offense. The Appellate Term adopted it in People v. Clark (2008). The Court of Appeals then held in People v. Badalamenti (2016) that consent covers a parent with a good faith, objectively reasonable belief that recording serves the child's best interests.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- The People v. Anthony Badalamenti (New York Court of Appeals 2016, 27 N.Y.3d 423)✓A father's call to the mother's phone connected with no one speaking, and he recorded her boyfriend threatening to beat his five year old son; the court held that consent under Penal Law 250.05 includes a parent's vicarious consent, so the recording was admissible.
- People v. Badalamenti (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 2015, 124 A.D.3d 672)✓Reviewing the same recording of a boyfriend threatening the father's young son, the Appellate Division adopted a vicarious consent exemption to Penal Law 250.05 where a parent has a good faith, objectively reasonable basis to believe recording serves the child's welfare.
- People v. Clark (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2008, 19 Misc. 3d 6)✓A mother slipped an audio recorder into the backpack of her nonverbal autistic eight year old before he boarded the school bus, capturing his bus matron; the Appellate Term held she could vicariously consent for him, so the recording did not violate Penal Law 250.05.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New York Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, New York Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, New York Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use
§ 250.00Eavesdropping; definitions of termsIn forcecited in 20 of our articles
Eavesdropping; definitions of terms. The following definitions are applicable to this article: 1. "Wiretapping" means the intentional overhearing or recording of a telephonic or telegraphic communication by a person other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. The normal operation of a telephone or telegraph corporation and the normal use of the services and facilities furnished by such corporation pursuant to its tariffs or necessary to protect the rights or property of said corporation shall not be deemed "wiretapping." 2. "Mechanical overhearing of a conversation" means the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. 3.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov
Cited in 56 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Fata (New York County Courts 1988, 139 Misc. 2d 979)“…Fata had a justifiable expectation of privacy; and (c) that Penal Law § 250.00 et seq. prohibit the mechanical overh…”
- The People v. Anthony Badalamenti (New York Court of Appeals 2016, 27 N.Y.3d 423)“…t of “mechanical overhearing of a conversation” pursuant to Penal Law § 250.00 (2), includes vicarious consent, on beh…”
- Gurevich v. Gurevich (New York Supreme Court 2009, 24 Misc. 3d 808)“…11 ing” as they relate to Penal Law § 250.05 are defined in Penal Law § 250.00 (6) as: “the intentional acquiring, r…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New York Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and Healthcare Privacy, New York Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits, New York Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Privacy Rules
§ 250.10Possession of eavesdropping devicesIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
Possession of eavesdropping devices. A person is guilty of possession of eavesdropping devices when, under circumstances evincing an intent to use or to permit the same to be used in violation of section 250.05, he possesses any instrument, device or equipment designed for, adapted to or commonly used in wiretapping or mechanical overhearing of a conversation. Possession of eavesdropping devices is a class A misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- The People v. Marc Mitchell (New York Court of Appeals 2022)“…ther person” (Bartlett Commission, Staff Notes on Proposed Penal Law § 250.10, at 387-390 [1964]). It is inconceivab…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: How to Detect and Block Listening Devices in Your Home (2026), New York AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), New York Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 53a (Penal Code), Chapter 952
§ 53a-187Definitions. Applicability.In forcecited in 22 of our articles
(a) The following definitions are applicable to sections 53a-188 and 53a-189: (1) “Wiretapping” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a telephonic or telegraphic communication or a communication made by cellular radio telephone by a person other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. The normal operation of a telephone or telegraph corporation and the normal use of the services and facilities furnished by such corporation pursuant to its tariffs shall not be deemed “wiretapping”. (2) “Mechanical overhearing of a conversation” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. (3) “Unlawfully” means not specifically authorized by law. For purposes of this section, “cellular radio telephone” means a wireless telephone authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to operate in the frequency bandwidth reserved for cellular radio telephones.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 12 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Connecticut courts read section 53a-187's definitions to reach only surreptitious, nonconsensual monitoring. State v. Grullon (1989) applied it to place one-party-consent recordings outside the eavesdropping statutes, and Washington v. Meachum (1996) held those statutes are violated only when neither party knows the call is monitored.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Grullon (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1989, 212 Conn. 195)✓Police recorded the defendant's calls with his brother, who consented; the court held that replacing the older wiretap penal statute with section 53a-187, which reaches recording only when no party consents, gave no reason to exclude the transcripts.
- Washington v. Meachum (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1996, 238 Conn. 692)✓Inmates challenged prison rules allowing nonprivileged collect calls to be monitored after posted signs, signed forms and a recurring tone; reading section 53a-187's consent-based definitions, the court held the eavesdropping statutes are violated only when neither party knows.
- State v. McVeigh (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1993, 224 Conn. 593)✓Police used a scanner in a neighbor's apartment to record a couple's cordless phone calls; the court rejected the State's argument that a 1989 amendment adding cellular phones to section 53a-187's wiretapping definition left cordless calls unprotected, and ordered suppression.
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), Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent for Phone Calls
New York Civil Practice Law and Rules
§ 4506Eavesdropping evidence; admissibility; motion to suppress in certain casesIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
Eavesdropping evidence; admissibility; motion to suppress in certain cases. 1. The contents of any overheard or recorded communication, conversation or discussion, or evidence derived therefrom, which has been obtained by conduct constituting the crime of eavesdropping, as defined by section 250.05 of the penal law, may not be received in evidence in any trial, hearing or proceeding before any court or grand jury, or before any legislative committee, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof; provided, however, that such communication, conversation, discussion or evidence, shall be admissible in any civil or criminal trial, hearing or proceeding against a person who has, or is alleged to have, committed such crime of eavesdropping. 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov
Also relied on in: New York Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Rights for Renters and Property Owners, New York Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP, Recordings as Evidence: US Court Rules by State
New York Criminal Procedure Law
§ 700.05Eavesdropping and video surveillance warrants; definitions of termsIn force
Eavesdropping and video surveillance warrants; definitions of terms. As used in this article, the following terms have the following meanings: 1. "Eavesdropping" means "wiretapping", "mechanical overhearing of conversation," or the "intercepting or accessing of an electronic communication", as those terms are defined in section 250.00 of the penal law, but does not include the use of a pen register or trap and trace device when authorized pursuant to article 705 of this chapter. 2. "Eavesdropping warrant" means an order of a justice authorizing or approving eavesdropping. 3.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Fusco (New York County Courts 1973, 75 Misc. 2d 981)“…ey of the County of Nassau, State of New York, .pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law, Section 700.05(5).” The provisions of CPL 700.05 (subd…”
- The People v. Joseph Schneider (New York Court of Appeals 2021)“…rants were “executed” in Kings County within the meaning of Criminal Procedure Law § 700.05 (4). We hold that eavesdropping warrant…”
- Opn. No. (New York Attorney General Reports 1997)“…gnated offenses" that may be the subject of an application. Criminal Procedure Law §§ 700.05 (4), (5), (8); 700.10. Article 700 a…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
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: Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026), Massachusetts Phone Call Recording Laws, Oregon Phone Call Recording Laws: Split Consent Rules and Penalties
Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 13: Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Chapter 19: Breach of the Peace; Disturbances, Subchapter: JURISDICTION OF JUSTICES
§ 1051Repealed. 1971, No. 222 (Adj. Sess.), § 7, eff. April 5, 1972Repealed
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov
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?
§ 2701Unlawful access to stored communicationsIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section whoever— intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section. The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is— if the offense is committed for purposes of commercial advantage, malicious destruction or damage, or private commercial gain, or in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or any State— a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of a first offense under this subparagraph; and a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense under this subparagraph; and in any other case— a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 1 year or both, in the case of a first offense under this paragraph;…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-16 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 724 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Warshak (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2010, 631 F.3d 266)“…ied in good faith on the Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 et seq., a statute that allows the gove…”
- Guest v. Leis (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2001, 255 F.3d 325)“…7 *340 In their brief, plaintiffs mention in passing 18 U.S.C. § 2701 , which prohibits intentional unlawful…”
- City of Ontario v. Quon (Supreme Court of the United States 2010, 560 U.S. 746)“…Raising claims under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983; 18 U. S. C. §2701 et seq., popularly known as the Stored…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Idaho Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Iowa Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
Sources and References
- N.Y. Penal Law 250.00 - Eavesdropping and Privacy Definitions(nysenate.gov).gov
- N.Y. Penal Law 250.05 - Eavesdropping (Class E Felony)(nysenate.gov).gov
- N.Y. Penal Law 250.10 - Possession of Eavesdropping Devices(law.justia.com)
- N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law Article 700 - Eavesdropping Warrants(nysenate.gov).gov
- CPLR 4506 - Eavesdropping Evidence Admissibility and Suppression(law.justia.com)
- Senate Bill S5070 - Recording Notice Requirement Proposal(nysenate.gov).gov
- Senate Bill S5077 - Two-Party Consent Proposal(nysenate.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. 2701 - Stored Communications Act(law.cornell.edu)
- NYC Bar Association Formal Opinion 2025-6 - AI Recording Ethics(nycbar.org)
- 18 U.S.C. 2520 - Recovery of civil damages authorized(law.cornell.edu)