Ohio
Ohio Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules, Penalties, and Compliance
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
Ohio is a one-party consent state for phone call recording under Ohio Rev. Code 2933.52, meaning you can legally record a phone call you participate in without notifying or obtaining permission from the other party, as long as you are not recording it to commit a crime, a tort, or another injurious act.
Quick Answer
Ohio allows you to record phone calls without telling the other person. Under Ohio Revised Code 2933.52, Ohio follows a one-party consent framework. That means you can legally record a phone call you are a participant in, as long as you are not recording it to commit a crime, a tort, or another injurious act. You do not need to announce the recording, play a beep tone, or ask for permission from the other caller.
This rule applies to landline calls, cell phone calls, VoIP conversations, and video calls with audio. If you are not a party to the call and no party has given you prior consent, recording that call is a fourth-degree felony.
What Does One-Party Consent Mean for Phone Calls?
One-party consent means that only one person involved in a phone call needs to know about and agree to the recording. That person can be you. If you dial someone in Ohio and press record on your phone, you have satisfied the legal requirement because you, the recording party, consent.
This stands in contrast to two-party consent states like California, Florida, and Pennsylvania, where every person on the call must agree before anyone can record. Ohio's approach gives callers broad freedom to document their own conversations.
The one-party consent exception is found in ORC 2933.52(B)(4). It states that a person who is not a law enforcement officer may intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication if that person is a party to the communication, or if one of the parties has given prior consent to the interception. There is one critical limitation: the recording must not be made for the purpose of committing a crime, a tort, or "any other injurious act" (ORC 2933.52(B)(4)). Ohio kept that last phrase after Congress dropped it from federal law, so a recording made to harm someone can lose the one-party protection even if no crime or tort is involved.
Ohio Statutes That Govern Phone Call Recording
ORC 2933.52: The Core Prohibition
Ohio Revised Code 2933.52 makes it illegal to purposely intercept, attempt to intercept, or procure another person to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication. The term "wire communication" specifically covers telephone calls. This includes traditional landline calls, cellular calls, and internet-based voice communications.
The statute also makes it a fourth-degree felony to use the contents of a call you know or have reason to know was illegally intercepted (ORC 2933.52(A)(3)), and the person recorded can sue anyone who intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used the call in violation of the law (ORC 2933.65).
ORC 2933.52(B): The Exceptions
ORC 2933.52(B) carves out several exceptions to the general prohibition. For everyday phone call recording, the most relevant exception is at (B)(4): a non-law-enforcement person may intercept a communication when they are a party to it or when one party has given prior consent.
Other exceptions include:
- Interceptions made under an Ohio interception warrant, an oral approval for an interception, or a federal court order (B)(1)
- Switchboard operators and employees of communication service providers acting in the normal course of providing service (B)(2), and carriers assisting an authorized investigation (B)(5)
- Law enforcement officers who are a party to the call or have a party's prior consent (B)(3)
- Certain radio, emergency-system, and publicly accessible communications (B)(8) through (B)(13)
ORC 2933.65: Civil Remedies
ORC 2933.65 gives victims of illegal phone call recording the right to file a civil lawsuit. A plaintiff recovers whichever is greater: liquidated damages (the greater of $200 per day of violation or $10,000), or actual damages plus the violator's profits. The court may also award equitable or declaratory relief, punitive damages if appropriate, and reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses (ORC 2933.65(A)).
The statute of limitations for a civil claim is two years from the date the victim first had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.
Federal Law: 18 U.S.C. 2511
Federal wiretapping law under 18 U.S.C. 2511 also follows a one-party consent standard. This means Ohio residents benefit from consistent rules at both the state and federal level. A recording that is legal under Ohio law will also be legal under federal law, provided the recording is not made for criminal or tortious purposes.
Federal penalties for illegal wiretapping are more severe than Ohio's state penalties. A federal conviction can result in up to five years in prison and fines up to $250,000.
Types of Phone Calls Covered
Landline Telephone Calls
Traditional landline calls are "wire communications" under ORC 2933.52. You can record any landline call you participate in without informing the other person. This applies whether you use a separate recording device, a phone with built-in recording features, or a third-party recording app connected to your line.
Cell Phone Calls
Cell phone calls receive the same treatment as landline calls under Ohio law. A cell call's voice is an aural transfer carried partly over wire facilities, so it is a wire communication under ORC 2933.51(A); the definition of electronic communication excludes wire communications. You can use your smartphone's built-in call recording feature, a dedicated recording app, or an external device to capture your cell phone conversations.
VoIP and Video Calls
The voice portion of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calls through services like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Skype, and similar platforms is likely a wire communication under ORC 2933.51(A), because it is an aural transfer carried partly over wire facilities; text chat and other non-voice data are electronic communications. You can record these calls when you are a participant.
Many VoIP platforms include their own recording features that notify all participants when recording begins. Using the platform's built-in recorder triggers those notifications automatically. If you want to record without notification, you would need to use a separate recording tool. Ohio law permits this, but the platform's terms of service may have their own restrictions.
Conference Calls and Group Calls
Ohio's one-party consent rule applies to multi-party calls as well. If you are one of the participants on a conference call, you can record the entire call without telling the other participants. Your consent as a participant satisfies the one-party requirement regardless of how many people are on the line.
If you are not a participant but have received prior consent from at least one party on the call, you can also legally record the conversation.
Recording Phone Calls for Business Purposes
Legal Requirements for Ohio Businesses
Ohio businesses can record phone calls for quality assurance, training, compliance, and dispute resolution. Because Ohio is a one-party consent state, a business employee who participates in a call can record it without notifying the customer or client.
However, many Ohio businesses choose to provide notice as a best practice. Common methods include:
- A pre-recorded message at the start of the call stating "This call may be recorded for quality and training purposes"
- Verbal disclosure from the employee at the beginning of the conversation
- Written notice in contracts, terms of service, or privacy policies
Why Businesses Often Notify Despite No Legal Requirement
Even though Ohio law does not require notification, businesses often announce recordings for several practical reasons:
- Calls with people in two-party consent states may be governed by that state's all-party rule, and courts have not settled which state's law applies
- Customer trust and transparency benefit from advance notice
- Industry regulations in banking, healthcare, and financial services may impose additional recording requirements
- The FCC and FTC enforce federal rules that affect telemarketing and debt collection calls
TCPA and FCC Considerations
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) primarily regulates telemarketing, autodialed calls, and robocalls rather than call recording itself. However, businesses that engage in outbound telemarketing must comply with TCPA requirements alongside Ohio's recording laws.
Under the TCPA, a person who receives an unlawful call can sue for actual losses or $500 per violation, whichever is greater, and a court may award up to three times that for willful or knowing violations (47 U.S.C. 227(b)(3)); the FCC can separately impose forfeiture penalties. Businesses should maintain proper consent documentation for both recording and telemarketing purposes.
Industry-Specific Recording Rules
Certain industries face additional federal recording and disclosure requirements:
- Financial services: The Dodd-Frank Act requires certain financial institutions to record specific categories of calls
- Healthcare: HIPAA does not prohibit call recording, but recorded calls containing protected health information must be stored securely and disclosed only as permitted
- Debt collection: The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) imposes disclosure requirements that affect how collectors interact with consumers by phone
- Insurance: The Ohio Department of Insurance may require specific disclosures during recorded sales calls
Cross-State Phone Call Recording
The Problem with Interstate Calls
When you make a call from Ohio to someone in another state, a conflict of laws can arise. Ohio requires only one-party consent, but the other state may require all-party consent. Courts have not established a uniform rule for which state's law controls in these situations.
All-Party Consent States to Watch
Thirteen states require the consent of all parties for at least one kind of conversation. For phone calls, that means the twelve below (Oregon's all-party rule covers in-person conversations, not calls). If you call someone in any of these states, the stricter law may apply:
| State | Key Statute |
|---|---|
| California | Cal. Penal Code 632 |
| Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d (covers phone calls) |
| Delaware | 11 Del. C. 1335(a)(4) (conflicts with 11 Del. C. 2402(c)(4), which lets a party record; no controlling decision, so get consent to be safe) |
| 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 (all-party for 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 |
Best Practice for Cross-State Calls
The safest approach when calling someone in a two-party consent state is to inform them that you are recording or to ask for their consent before pressing record. If you want to see that other state's rule first, our recording consent checker can line Ohio's rule up against theirs. Tell the other person at the start that you are recording and get a clear yes before you continue. Courts in some states have treated a clear disclosure at the outset as defeating any expectation of privacy, but others have not decided whether staying on the line after a notice counts as consent, so an express yes is the only reliable protection.
Federal Law as a Baseline
Federal law under 18 U.S.C. 2511 provides a floor of one-party consent, and states may set stricter rules. Some courts have applied an all-party state's law to a business that recorded calls from another state. In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006), the California Supreme Court applied California law only to future calls and applied Georgia law, where the recording was made, to past damages.
Criminal Penalties for Illegal Phone Call Recording
Fourth-Degree Felony
Under ORC 2933.52, illegally intercepting a phone call is a fourth-degree felony. The penalties include:
| Penalty | Amount |
|---|---|
| Prison sentence | 6 to 18 months |
| Fine | Up to $5,000 |
| Probation | Up to 5 years of community control |
A felony conviction also carries collateral consequences including a permanent criminal record, difficulty finding employment, restrictions on professional licensing, and potential loss of firearm rights.
Using an Illegal Recording
Using the contents of a phone call you know or have reason to know was illegally intercepted is a separate fourth-degree felony under ORC 2933.52(A)(3). The statute does not list disclosure as its own crime. Knowingly using the contents is the offense, and that use can also support a civil suit under ORC 2933.65.
Federal Criminal Penalties
A federal wiretapping conviction under 18 U.S.C. 2511 carries up to five years in federal prison and fines of up to $250,000. Federal prosecutors may pursue charges when illegal recording involves interstate communications or crosses state lines.
Civil Liability for Illegal Phone Call Recording
Damages Under ORC 2933.65
ORC 2933.65 provides generous civil remedies for victims of illegal phone call recording:
- Damages, whichever is greater: liquidated damages ($200 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater), or actual damages plus any profits the violator earned from the violation. These are alternatives, not added together.
- Punitive damages: If appropriate
- Attorney fees: Reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses
- Equitable relief: Preliminary, equitable, or declaratory relief, such as court orders to prevent further illegal recording
Statute of Limitations
Victims have two years from the date they first had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation to file a civil lawsuit. The clock does not start until discovery, which provides protection for people who may not immediately learn that their calls were recorded.
Good Faith Defense
ORC 2933.65(B) gives a complete defense to someone who relied in good faith on an interception warrant, a court order, an oral interception order, a grand jury subpoena, or a legislative or statutory authorization. It does not protect a person who simply believed, mistakenly, that a recording was legal.
Using Phone Call Recordings as Evidence in Ohio
Admissibility Standards
Phone call recordings made legally under Ohio's one-party consent law are generally admissible in both criminal and civil proceedings. Courts evaluate recordings based on:
- Authentication: The recording must be shown to be genuine and unaltered
- Relevance: The recording must relate to an issue in the case
- Best evidence rule: The original recording is preferred over copies when possible
- Hearsay exceptions: Statements in recordings may qualify under various hearsay exceptions, including admissions by a party-opponent
Suppression of Illegal Recordings
Under ORC 2933.62 and ORC 2933.63, a person whose call was unlawfully intercepted can move to suppress it in any Ohio court or agency proceeding other than a grand jury, civil or criminal; if the motion is granted, the recording cannot be received in evidence.
Practical Tips for Preserving Recordings
If you plan to use a phone call recording as evidence:
- Save the original file without editing or modifying it
- Back up the recording to a secure, separate location
- Note the date, time, and participants when making the recording
- Keep a chain of custody log showing who has accessed the file
- Do not share the recording widely before presenting it in court
Common Scenarios
Recording Customer Service Calls
You can record your calls with customer service representatives, utility companies, insurance agents, and any other business. This is often useful for documenting verbal promises, service agreements, or complaint resolutions.
Recording Calls with Government Agencies
You can record phone calls with Ohio government agencies including the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, tax offices, and other public offices. Government employees performing their duties typically have a reduced expectation of privacy.
Recording Calls with Attorneys
You can legally record phone calls with your own attorney or with opposing counsel if you are a party to the conversation. However, attorney-client privilege may be affected if you share a recording of a privileged conversation with third parties.
Recording Calls During Disputes
Recording phone calls during landlord-tenant disputes, insurance claims, consumer complaints, and family law matters is legal and can provide valuable documentation. Courts in Ohio regularly admit phone call recordings as evidence in these types of cases.
Explore More Ohio Recording Law Topics
Ohio Audio Recording Laws | Ohio Video Recording Laws | Ohio Workplace Recording Laws | Ohio Dashcam Laws | Ohio Security Camera Laws | Ohio School Recording Laws | Ohio Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws | Ohio Medical Recording Laws | Ohio Laws on Recording Police | Ohio Laws on Recording in Public | Ohio Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws
More Ohio Recording Topics
More Ohio Laws
- Ohio AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Ohio Dashcam Laws
- Ohio Data Privacy Laws
- Ohio Deepfake Laws
- Ohio Employee Monitoring Laws
- Ohio GPS Tracking Laws
- Ohio Police Bodycam Laws
- Ohio Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Ohio without telling the other person?
Yes. Ohio is a one-party consent state under ORC 2933.52(B)(4). You can record a phone call you participate in without informing the other caller, as long as you are not recording it to commit a crime, a tort, or another injurious act. Your own consent as a participant satisfies the legal requirement.
Is it legal to record a business phone call in Ohio?
Yes. Ohio businesses can record phone calls with customers, clients, and partners without providing notice. However, many businesses announce recordings as a best practice, especially when handling calls from two-party consent states.
What happens if I illegally record a phone call in Ohio?
Illegal phone call recording is a fourth-degree felony under ORC 2933.52, punishable by 6 to 18 months in prison and fines up to $5,000. The victim can also sue for civil damages of at least $10,000 plus attorney fees under ORC 2933.65.
Can I record a phone call with someone in a two-party consent state from Ohio?
Ohio law permits the recording, but the other state may not. If you call someone in California, Florida, or another two-party consent state, the stricter law may apply. The safest approach is to inform the other person that you are recording.
Are recorded phone calls admissible in Ohio courts?
Yes. Phone call recordings made legally under Ohio one-party consent law are generally admissible in both criminal and civil proceedings. The recording must be authenticated as genuine and unaltered, and it must be relevant to the case.
Updates
Hedged the classification of VoIP voice calls as wire communications under Ohio law.
Corrected the classification of cell and VoIP voice calls as wire communications under ORC 2933.51, clarified that knowing use (not disclosure as such) is the ORC 2933.52 offense, and narrowed the cross-state discussion to note that Kearney applied California law only to future calls and that courts have not settled which state's law governs.
We added the full crime, tort, or injurious-purpose limit to Ohio's one-party rule, added Delaware and Nevada to the all-party state table, corrected the civil damages (liquidated or actual, not both) and the good-faith defense, removed a disclosure crime and an out-of-state prosecution claim with no source, fixed the TCPA damages description, and removed advice that a notice plus staying on the line counts as consent.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the mislabeled 'one-party consent exception' statute throughout the page: the substantive exception is ORC 2933.52(B)(4), not ORC 2933.53 (a law-enforcement warrant-application procedure), fixed in the lede paragraph, a section heading, the FAQ, and the citations list.
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.
Ohio Revised Code
§ 2933.52Interception of wire, oral or electronic communicationsIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
(A) No person purposely shall do any of the following: (1) Intercept, attempt to intercept, or procure another person to intercept or attempt to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication; (2) Use, attempt to use, or procure another person to use or attempt to use an interception device to…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 64 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Bidinost (1994) held R.C. 2933.52(A)'s ban on purposeful interception applies to cordless telephone conversations intercepted and recorded on a baby monitor, requiring suppression. State v. Childs (2000) held the party seeking to suppress bears the burden of proving a 2933.52(A)(1) violation.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Robb (Ohio Supreme Court 2000, 88 Ohio St. 3d 59)✓During a prison siege, FBI agents used tunnel microphones to record rioting inmates' conversations without a warrant; the court held those interceptions were exempt under former Section 2933.52(B)(1), Ohio's exception for interceptions made under federal wiretap law.
- State v. Childs (Ohio Supreme Court 2000, 88 Ohio St. 3d 558)✓A defendant sought to suppress tapes of her own conversations as intercepted in violation of Section 2933.52(A)(1), but no one proved whether the other party consented; the court held the party seeking suppression carries the burden of proof, so the motion failed.
- State v. Bidinost (Ohio Supreme Court 1994, 71 Ohio St. 3d 449)✓A neighbor's baby monitor began picking up the defendant's cordless phone calls, and at police direction she recorded them; the court held that was a purposeful interception barred by Section 2933.52(A) and that the recordings had to be suppressed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ohio Smart Glasses Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Guide, Ohio Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Ohio Audio Recording Laws: Consent, Devices, and Penalties
§ 2933.53Application for interception warrantIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
(A) The prosecuting attorney of the county in which an interception is to take place or in which an interception device is to be installed, or an assistant to the prosecuting attorney of that county who is specifically designated by the prosecuting attorney to exercise authority under this section,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 11 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Nettles (Slip Opinion) (Ohio Supreme Court 2020, 159 Ohio St. 3d 180)“…Nettles, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-768.] For purposes of R.C. 2933.53, an interception of a cell-phone call t…”
- State v. Nettles (Ohio Court of Appeals 2018, 2018 Ohio 4908)“…ls. The court next determined that the state complied with R.C. 2933.53(B)(9), by providing 3. the affidav…”
- Ohio Domestic Violence Network v. Public Utilities Commission (Ohio Supreme Court 1994, 70 Ohio St. 3d 311)“…s interception. See Section 2511(2)(c), Title 18, U.S.Code; R.C. 2933.53(B)(4). See, also, Hamm, supra.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ohio Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Privacy, Cameras, and Rights, Ohio Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent
§ 2933.63Motion to suppress evidence from intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communicationIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
(A) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of this state or of a political subdivision of this state, other than a grand jury, may request the involved court, department, officer, agency,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 16 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Davies (Ohio Court of Appeals 2001, 145 Ohio App. 3d 630)“…rial court did not expressly address the issue of standing. R.C. 2933.63(A) allows any “aggrieved person” to req…”
- State v. Robb (Ohio Supreme Court 2000, 88 Ohio St. 3d 59)“…not suppressing evidence from the tunnel tapes under former R.C. 2933.63. The court of appeals *66 agreed that…”
- State v. Bidinost (Ohio Supreme Court 1994, 71 Ohio St. 3d 449)“…ted by the terms of R.C. 2933.52(A). Therefore, pursuant to R.C. 2933.63, the trial court was required to suppre…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Recordings as Evidence: US Court Rules by State
§ 2933.65Civil and criminal actions for wiretapping and electronic surveillance violationsIn forcecited in 11 of our articles
(A) A person whose wire, oral, or electronic communications are intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of sections 2933.51 to 2933.66 of the Revised Code may bring a civil action to recover from the person or entity that engaged in the violation any relief that may be…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Bidinost (Ohio Supreme Court 1994, 71 Ohio St. 3d 449)“…se of an interception warrant. See R.C. 2933.52(B)(1). 8 R.C. 2933.65 provides, in part: "(A) Any person…”
- Choby v. Aylsworth, 2006-L-144 (6-29-2007) (Ohio Court of Appeals 2007, 2007 Ohio 3375)“…ity), R.C. 2307.60 (civil recovery for criminal act), and R.C. 2933.65 (civil remedy for interception of wire…”
- John H. Nix v. Patrick J. O'Malley Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 1998, 160 F.3d 343)“…parties to the intercepted communications. See Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2933.65 (Banks-Baldwin 1998) (reprinting the pr…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ohio Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Privacy, Ohio Security Camera Laws: Residential, Commercial, and Privacy Rules, Ohio Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights
§ 2953.32Sealing or expungement of record of conviction record or bail forfeiture; exceptionsIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
(A)(1) Sections 2953.32 and 2953.34 of the Revised Code do not apply to any of the following: (a) Convictions under Chapter 4506., 4507., 4510., 4511., or 4549.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 607 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Hamilton (1996) held that a prosecutor's participation in a sealing hearing is not limited to the issues stated in a written objection under R.C. 2953.32(B), and State v. LaSalle (2002) held that the statutory law in effect when a 2953.32 application is filed controls.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Hamilton (Ohio Supreme Court 1996, 75 Ohio St. 3d 636)✓A man convicted of theft applied to seal the record; the prosecutor filed no written objection but appeared at the hearing and cross-examined him. The court held R.C. 2953.32(B) does not limit a prosecutor's participation to issues raised in a written objection.
- State v. Pariag (Ohio Supreme Court 2013, 137 Ohio St. 3d 81)“…ied definition. Although the word “expungement” was used in R.C. 2953.32, Ohio’s first-time-offender statute, “e…”
- State v. LaSalle (Ohio Supreme Court 2002, 96 Ohio St. 3d 178)✓LaSalle applied to seal a domestic violence conviction; while it was pending, an amendment barred sealing such records and the trial court vacated its sealing order. The court held the statutory law in effect when an R.C. 2953.32 application is filed governs.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ohio Background Check Laws (2026 Guide), Ohio Court Records: How to Search by County, What's Public, and Sealing, Ohio OVI Laws: Penalties, BAC Limit & License (2026)
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
- Ohio Rev. Code 2933.52 - Interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications(codes.ohio.gov).gov
- Ohio Rev. Code 2933.65 - Civil liability for unlawful interception(codes.ohio.gov).gov
- Ohio Rev. Code 2933.63 - Suppression of illegally intercepted communications(codes.ohio.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Federal wiretapping statute(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC - Telephone Consumer Protection Act rules(fcc.gov).gov
- Federal Trade Commission(ftc.gov).gov