South Carolina
South Carolina Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Calls (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

South Carolina is a one-party consent state for phone call recording under S.C. Code Ann. 17-30-30, meaning you can legally record any phone call you participate in without notifying the other party. This rule applies to landline calls, cell phone calls, and VoIP calls equally.
Phone call recording is one of the most common recording scenarios people ask about, and South Carolina's rules are straightforward. As a one-party consent state, South Carolina allows you to record any phone call you are part of without notifying or getting permission from anyone else on the call. This guide covers the specific rules for personal calls, business calls, conference calls, VoIP recordings, and interstate calls.
The Legal Basis for Phone Call Recording
S.C. Code Ann. 17-30-30: The One-Party Consent Exception
South Carolina's wiretapping statute at S.C. Code Ann. 17-30-20 generally prohibits the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. However, S.C. Code Ann. 17-30-30 creates a critical exception: interception is lawful when one party to the communication has given consent.

Phone calls fall under the statute's definition of "wire communications," which includes any voice transmission made through wire, cable, or similar connection. This covers:
- Traditional landline telephone calls
- Cellular phone calls
- VoIP calls (Voice over Internet Protocol)
- Calls made through internet-connected devices and apps
- Video calls with audio (Zoom, FaceTime, Google Meet, Microsoft Teams)
Since you are a party to calls you participate in, your own consent satisfies the one-party requirement. You do not need to tell the other person, play a warning tone, or provide any notice.
Federal Law Alignment
The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act at 18 U.S.C. 2511 also follows a one-party consent model, but the two are not identical. South Carolina's 17-30-30(C) has no exception for recordings made for a criminal or harmful purpose. Federal law does: under 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d), even a participant's recording is a federal crime if it is made to commit a crime or a tort, such as blackmail or extortion. Because federal law applies in South Carolina as well, a call recording that is lawful under state law can still violate federal law when it is made for that kind of purpose.
Recording Personal Phone Calls
Calls You Participate In
You can record any personal phone call in South Carolina as long as you are a participant. Common scenarios include:
- Recording a dispute with a service provider or contractor
- Documenting a conversation with an insurance adjuster
- Preserving a verbal agreement about a financial transaction
- Recording threatening or harassing phone calls
- Keeping records of conversations with government agencies
- Recording calls with your ex-spouse or co-parent about custody matters
Calls You Do Not Participate In
Recording phone calls you are not a party to is illegal. This includes:
- Tapping someone else's phone line
- Using software to intercept calls on a phone you do not own
- Recording calls between other people using a shared phone line without their knowledge
- Using a baby monitor or intercom system to listen to and record others' phone calls
These activities constitute illegal interception under S.C. Code Ann. 17-30-20 and are felonies carrying up to 5 years in prison and $5,000 in fines.
Recording Apps and Tools
Popular phone call recording tools include:
- Built-in smartphone features (some Android phones have native call recording)
- Third-party apps (Rev Call Recorder, TapeACall, Cube ACR)
- External recording devices connected to your phone
- Google Voice (offers call recording for incoming calls)
- VoIP platform features (Zoom, Teams, and Google Meet have built-in recording)
South Carolina law does not restrict what tool you use to record. The legal requirement is simply that you are a party to the call.
Recording Business Phone Calls

Employer Recording of Business Calls
South Carolina businesses can record phone calls for legitimate business purposes including:
- Quality assurance and training. Recording customer service calls to evaluate agent performance and improve service.
- Compliance monitoring. Financial services firms, healthcare providers, and other regulated industries may record calls for regulatory compliance.
- Dispute resolution. Recording calls preserves accurate records of customer orders, complaints, and agreements.
- Legal protection. Recorded calls provide evidence in case of disputes or litigation.
Notice Requirements for Business Calls
South Carolina law does not require businesses to provide a pre-call announcement or "this call may be recorded" notice. As long as a company employee is a participant on the call, the one-party consent requirement is satisfied.
However, many businesses choose to provide notice for several practical reasons:
- Interstate compliance. If the business serves customers in two-party consent states, providing notice reduces risk under those states' stricter laws, though in some of those states notice alone may not count as consent; the safest practice is to get each caller's clear agreement.
- Customer trust. Transparent recording practices build customer confidence.
- Industry regulations. Some industries have specific requirements for call recording disclosures.
- Best practices. Professional organizations and trade groups often recommend recording notices.
Methods of Providing Notice
When businesses choose to provide notice, common methods include:
- Automated announcement. A pre-recorded message played before the call connects: "This call may be recorded for quality and training purposes."
- Verbal disclosure. The agent informs the caller at the start of the conversation.
- Written disclosure. Terms of service or privacy policies that mention call recording (though this alone may not be sufficient for two-party consent states).
- Periodic beep tone. Some systems play a recurring tone during recorded calls. This method alone is generally not considered adequate notice.
Employee Call Recording
South Carolina employees can record their own business phone calls under one-party consent. This applies to:
- Calls with customers or clients
- Calls with vendors and suppliers
- Internal calls with coworkers and management
- Conference calls where the employee is a participant
Employers may have internal policies restricting employee recording. While the recording is legal under state law, violating a company policy can result in disciplinary action or termination.
Conference Calls and Multi-Party Calls
One-Party Consent on Conference Calls
South Carolina's one-party consent rule applies to conference calls the same way it applies to two-party calls. If you are a participant on a conference call, you can record the entire call without informing any of the other participants.
Conference Calls with Interstate Participants
Conference calls become legally complicated when participants are in different states with different recording laws. Consider this scenario:
- You are in South Carolina (one-party consent)
- One participant is in New York (one-party consent)
- One participant is in California (two-party consent)
The California participant is protected by California's all-party consent law. To avoid liability, you should either inform all participants that the call is being recorded or get explicit consent from participants in two-party consent states.
Best practice for multi-state conference calls: At the start of the call, announce that the call is being recorded and get a clear yes from each participant before recording. Silence after an announcement is not reliably treated as consent in all-party states.
VoIP and Video Call Recording

Zoom, Teams, Google Meet, and FaceTime
VoIP and video calling platforms are subject to the same one-party consent rules as traditional phone calls. If you are a participant on a Zoom call, Microsoft Teams meeting, Google Meet session, or FaceTime call, you can record it under South Carolina law.
Platform-specific considerations:
- Zoom has a built-in recording feature that notifies all participants when recording starts. Using a separate external recorder avoids the notification.
- Microsoft Teams similarly notifies participants when the built-in recording starts.
- Google Meet provides recording for certain account types with participant notification.
- FaceTime does not have a built-in recording feature. Screen recording software captures the call.
While South Carolina law does not require you to use the platform's built-in notification, be aware that platform terms of service may require it. Violating terms of service is a contractual matter, not a criminal one.
International VoIP Calls
When recording VoIP calls with international participants, additional laws may apply. Many countries have stricter recording consent requirements than the United States. If you are calling someone in another country, research that country's recording laws before recording.
Interstate Phone Call Recording
The Cross-State Consent Problem
One of the most frequently asked questions involves recording calls between South Carolina and states with different consent requirements. No single rule decides which state's law applies when a call crosses state lines. Courts weigh the facts: several have applied the law of the state where the recording was made, while California has applied its own all-party rule to protect its residents. Because the answer is uncertain, the safe practice is to tell the other person you are recording and get their agreement before you record.
Two-Party Consent States to Watch
Thirteen states require every party's consent for at least some conversations. If you are in South Carolina calling someone in any of these states, you should inform them and get consent before recording:
| State | Consent Requirement | Key Statute |
|---|---|---|
| California | All-party | Penal Code 632 |
| Connecticut | All-party for phone calls (civil liability) | Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d |
| Delaware | Conflicting statutes (one allows a participant to record, one requires all-party consent) | 11 Del. C. 1335(a)(4); 11 Del. C. 2402(c)(4) |
| Florida | All-party | Fla. Stat. 934.03 |
| Illinois | All-party | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 |
| Maryland | All-party | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402 |
| Massachusetts | All-party | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99 |
| Montana | All-party | Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213 |
| Nevada | All-party for phone calls | Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620 |
| New Hampshire | All-party | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 570-A:2 |
| Oregon | All-party for in-person and video-conference conversations (one-party for ordinary phone calls) | Or. Rev. Stat. 165.540 |
| Pennsylvania | All-party | 18 Pa.C.S. 5704 |
| Washington | All-party | Wash. Rev. Code 9.73.030 |
Safe Approach for Interstate Calls
To avoid any risk when recording calls with out-of-state parties:
- At the start of the call, state: "I would like to record this call. Is that okay with you?"
- Wait for verbal consent before starting the recording.
- If the other party declines, respect their decision and do not record.
- If you are unsure which state the other party is in, provide notice and request consent. Our recording consent checker lets you check both states before the call so you can follow the stricter rule.
Recording Voicemail Messages

Leaving Recorded Voicemails
When someone leaves you a voicemail, they know they are being recorded by the voicemail system. You can retain and use voicemail messages without any additional consent requirements.
Recording Your Voicemail Greetings
You control your own voicemail greeting. You can use your greeting to inform callers that you may record return calls, though this is not required under South Carolina law.
Using Voicemails as Evidence
Voicemail messages are generally admissible as evidence in South Carolina courts. They are treated similarly to other audio recordings, subject to authentication requirements and relevance standards.
Phone Call Recordings as Evidence in South Carolina
Admissibility
Phone call recordings made under one-party consent are admissible in South Carolina courts. The offering party must establish:
- Authentication. Testimony about who made the recording, when, and under what circumstances. Voice identification by someone familiar with the speakers may also be required.
- Integrity. The recording has not been altered, edited, or tampered with. Maintaining the original file with metadata intact strengthens authentication.
- Relevance. The recording relates to a matter at issue in the case.
- Compliance with recording laws. The recording was made in compliance with S.C. Code Ann. 17-30-30.
Common Uses in Legal Proceedings
Phone call recordings are frequently used in:
- Divorce and family court. Recording conversations with an ex-spouse about custody, finances, or threats.
- Business disputes. Preserving evidence of verbal contracts, agreements, or misrepresentations.
- Personal injury claims. Recording statements by insurance adjusters or at-fault parties.
- Employment disputes. Documenting conversations about pay, hours, harassment, or discrimination.
- Criminal cases. Recording threatening calls, harassment, or evidence of criminal activity.
- Consumer protection claims. Recording deceptive sales calls or warranty discussions.
Criminal Penalties for Illegal Phone Recording
Standard Violations
Under S.C. Code Ann. 17-30-50:
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Illegal interception of wire communications | Felony | Up to 5 years in prison, up to $5,000 fine |
| First-offense interception of the unscrambled radio portion of a cell or cordless phone signal, not for an unlawful or commercial purpose | Misdemeanor | Up to $1,000 fine per violation |
Any other interception of a cell phone call, including a repeat offense or one made for an unlawful or commercial purpose, is the felony under 17-30-50(A).
Civil Liability
Under S.C. Code Ann. 17-30-135, victims of illegal phone recording can recover:
- $500 per day of violation or $25,000 minimum (whichever is greater)
- Actual damages
- Punitive damages
- Attorney's fees and costs
Tips for Recording Phone Calls in South Carolina
Technical Best Practices
- Test your recording setup before important calls. Ensure the recording is clear and captures both sides of the conversation.
- Use a reliable recording method. Built-in phone recording, a dedicated app, or an external recorder connected to your phone.
- Ensure adequate storage. Phone call recordings can consume significant storage space, especially for long calls.
- Back up recordings. Store copies in a secure cloud location or separate device.
- Preserve metadata. Keep original files with timestamps, call duration, and other metadata intact.
Legal Best Practices
- Always be a participant. Never record calls you are not part of.
- Know the other party's state. Check recording laws for the state where the other caller is located.
- When in doubt, inform. If you are uncertain about the other party's location, provide notice and request consent.
- Document the context. Note the date, time, participants, and purpose of each recorded call.
- Store securely. Keep recordings in a location accessible only to you and your attorney.
South Carolina Recording Law Sub-Topics
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism Laws | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | School Recording | Medical Recording
Back to South Carolina Recording Laws
More South Carolina Recording Topics
More South Carolina Laws
- South Carolina AI Meeting Recording Laws
- South Carolina Dashcam Laws
- South Carolina Data Privacy Laws
- South Carolina Deepfake Laws
- South Carolina Employee Monitoring Laws
- South Carolina GPS Tracking Laws
- South Carolina Police Bodycam Laws
- South Carolina Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in South Carolina without telling the other person?
Yes. South Carolina is a one-party consent state under S.C. Code Ann. 17-30-30. As long as you are a participant in the phone call, you can record it without informing or getting consent from the other party. This applies to landline calls, cell phone calls, and VoIP calls.
Is it legal to record a Zoom or video call in South Carolina?
Yes, if you are a participant. VoIP and video calls are subject to the same one-party consent rule as traditional phone calls. You can record Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and FaceTime calls without informing other participants. Note that the built-in recording features of these platforms typically notify participants automatically.
Do businesses in South Carolina need to say 'this call is being recorded'?
No. South Carolina law does not require a pre-call announcement for recording business phone calls. As long as a company employee participates in the call, one-party consent is satisfied. Businesses that serve customers in two-party consent states should do more than give notice: in those states it is not settled that a recording message plus staying on the line counts as consent, so the safest practice is to get each caller's clear agreement.
Can I record a phone call with someone in California from South Carolina?
You should get their consent first. California is an all-party consent state, and courts do not follow a single rule for cross-state calls; California has applied its own law to protect its residents. While your South Carolina recording is legal on your end, the California participant may have a legal claim against you under California Penal Code 632. Inform them and request consent to avoid liability.
Can phone call recordings be used as evidence in South Carolina courts?
Yes. Recordings made legally under one-party consent are generally admissible. You must authenticate the recording (prove it is genuine and unaltered), demonstrate its relevance to the case, and show it was made in compliance with the law. Under S.C. Code Ann. 17-30-65, a recording made in violation of the wiretap law, and any evidence derived from it, cannot be used in any South Carolina court or agency proceeding, civil, family, or criminal, except in a prosecution for the illegal interception itself.
Updates
Noted in a key takeaway that intercepting a call is generally, not always, a felony, since a narrow first-offense radio-interception tier is a misdemeanor.
Clarified that a non-party may lawfully record a call when one of the parties has given prior consent, as S.C. Code 17-30-30(C) provides.
Explained that federal law still bars a participant recording made to commit a crime or tort, replaced an inaccurate "stricter law applies" rule for interstate calls, completed the all-party consent state table (adding Delaware, Nevada, and Oregon), clarified that a recording notice is not always consent, corrected the evidence-exclusion statute (17-30-65, all proceedings), and narrowed the cell-phone misdemeanor row.
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.
South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 17: CRIMINAL PROCEDURES
§ 17-30-30Interception by employee of Federal Communications Commission, by person acting under color or law, and when party has given prior consentIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
(A) It is lawful under this chapter for an officer, employee, or agent of the Federal Communications Commission, in the normal course of his employment and in discharge of the monitoring responsibilities exercised by the commission in the enforcement of 47 U.S.C. Chapter 5, to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication transmitted by radio or to disclose or use the information thereby obtained. (B) It is lawful under this chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication, where the person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception. (C) It is lawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- McNeely (District Court, D. South Carolina 2025)“…a showing. The South Carolina statute cited by Plaintiff—S.C. Code § 17-30-30—provides “it is lawful . . . for a per…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Carolina Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, South Carolina Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, South Carolina Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
§ 17-30-115Interception of communications; requirements relating to specifications of facilities; exceptionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
The requirements relating to the specification of the facilities from which, or the place where, the communication is to be intercepted do not apply if: (1) in the case of an application with respect to the interception of an oral communication the: (a) application is initiated by the Chief of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) and is approved by the Attorney General or his designated Assistant Attorney General; (b) application contains a full and complete statement as to why the specification is not practical and identifies the person committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted; and (c) judge finds that the specification is not practical; and (2) in the case of an application with respect to a wire or electronic communication the: (a) application is initiated by the Chief of SLED and is approved by the Attorney General or his designated Assistant Attorney General; (b) application identifies the person believed to be committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted and the applicant makes a showing that there is probable cause to believe that the person's actions could have the effect of thwarting interception…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov
§ 17-30-135Civil action for wrongful interceptionsIn forcecited in 11 of our articles
(A) Any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter has a civil cause of action against any person or entity who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person or entity to intercept, disclose, or use the communications and is entitled to recover from the person or entity which engaged in that violation relief as may be appropriate, including: (1) preliminary or equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; (2) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of five hundred dollars a day for each day of violation or twenty-five thousand dollars, whichever is greater, not to exceed the limits on liability provided in subsection (F)(3); (3) punitive damages, except as may be prohibited in subsection (F)(4); and (4) a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Carson v. Emergency MD LLC (District Court, D. South Carolina 2020)“…ation of this chapter has a civil cause of action . . . .” S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-135(A). Moreover, the SCHSA’s list of proh…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Carolina Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026), South Carolina Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Rights for Renters and Landlords (2026), South Carolina Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026)
§ 17-30-20Prohibited actsIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, a person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be punished as provided in Section 17-30-50 of this chapter: (1) intentionally intercepts, attempts to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (2) intentionally uses, attempts to use, or procures any other person to use or attempt to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when: (a) the device is affixed to or otherwise transmits a signal through a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or (b) the device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of the communication; (3) intentionally discloses or attempts to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; (4) intentionally uses or attempts to use the contents of any wire, oral, or…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ducharme v. Madewell Concrete LLC (District Court, D. South Carolina 2021)“…the intentional interception of electronic communications. S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-20; 18 U.S.C. § 2511. The critical inquir…”
- Carson v. Emergency MD LLC (District Court, D. South Carolina 2020)“…SCHSA’s list of prohibited acts require interception. See S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-20. The SCHSA defines “intercept” as “the…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Carolina Video Recording Laws: Where You Can and Cannot Record (2026), South Carolina Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Peeping, and Penalties (2026), South Carolina AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
§ 17-30-50Penalty for violating Sections 17-30-20 through 17-30-45In forcecited in 11 of our articles
(A) Except as provided in subsection (B), whoever violates the provisions of Sections 17-30-20 through 17-30-45, upon conviction, must be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both. (B) If the offense is a first offense under this chapter and is not for any unlawful purpose or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain, and the wire or electronic communication with respect to which the offense under this chapter was committed is a radio communication that is not scrambled, encrypted, or transmitted using modulation techniques the essential parameters of which have been withheld from the public with the intention of preserving the privacy of the communication, then: (1) if the communication is not the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication, or a paging service communication, and the conduct is not that described in Section 17-30-35(7), the person committing the offense is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at scstatehouse.gov
Also relied on in: Alabama Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, South Carolina Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026, South Carolina Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
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)
§ 5704Exceptions to prohibition of interception and disclosure of communicationsIn forcecited in 26 of our articles
It shall not be unlawful and no prior court approval shall be required under this chapter for: (1) An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent or employee of a provider of wire or electronic communication service, whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of wire or electronic communication service. However, no provider of wire or electronic communication service shall utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks. (2) Any investigative or law enforcement officer or any person acting at the direction or request of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication involving suspected criminal activities, including, but not limited to, the crimes enumerated in section 5708 (relating to order authorizing interception of wire, electronic or oral communications), where: (i) (Deleted by amendment).
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 126 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (1987) concluded Article I, Section 8 requires a warrant for one party consensual electronic eavesdropping, reading 5704(2) as only exempting that practice, not authorizing it. Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (2008) held 5704(14)(i)(C) permits disclosing a recorded inmate call in any criminal prosecution.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2008, 599 Pa. 1)✓The Commonwealth used a recorded jail phone call between an inmate and his parents at his murder trial; the court held section 5704(14) was not violated because all three knew the call was being recorded, and the contents were properly divulged for a criminal prosecution.
- Commonwealth v. Arrington (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 2014, 624 Pa. 506)✓A murder defendant sought to suppress a call the victim recorded, on which he asked repeatedly whether he was being taped and said he did not care; the court addressed whether that amounted to prior consent under section 5704(4) but did not resolve it, finding any error harmless.
- Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1987, 370 Pa. Super. 179)✓Police sent a wired informant into Schaeffer's home to record a marijuana buy without a warrant; the en banc court read section 5704(2) as only exempting participant monitoring from the Wiretap Act, not authorizing it, and held the state constitution still required a warrant.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Pennsylvania Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Felony Penalties (2026), Pennsylvania Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
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)
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 17: CRIMINAL PROCEDURES § 17-30-10 (Interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications authorized)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Sources and References
- South Carolina Code of Laws, Title 17, Chapter 30 -- Wiretapping(scstatehouse.gov).gov
- S.C. Code Ann. 17-30-50 -- Criminal Penalties(scstatehouse.gov).gov
- S.C. Code Ann. 17-30-135 -- Civil Action(scstatehouse.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 -- Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC -- Recording Telephone Conversations(fcc.gov).gov