Tennessee
Tennessee Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Tennessee is a one-party consent state for phone call recording. Under Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-601, any participant in a call may record it without notifying the other parties. The rule applies to landline, cell, VoIP, and video calls, and requires no beep tone or advance disclosure.
Tennessee allows you to record your own phone calls without telling the other person. Under Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-601, the state follows a one-party consent framework for recording wire, oral, and electronic communications. As long as you are a participant in the phone call, you can record it without notifying or obtaining permission from anyone else on the line.
This guide covers everything you need to know about recording phone calls in Tennessee in 2026, including what the law actually says, how it applies to different types of calls, what happens when you call someone in another state, and how recorded calls can be used as evidence.
What Tennessee Law Says About Recording Phone Calls
The Core Statute: Tenn. Code Ann. Section 39-13-601
Tennessee's wiretapping and electronic surveillance laws are found in Title 39, Chapter 13, Part 6 of the Tennessee Code Annotated, titled "Invasion of Privacy." The primary statute, Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-601, makes it illegal to intentionally intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication.
The one-party rule is an exception in section 39-13-601(b)(5): it is lawful to intercept a communication when you are a party to it or one party has given prior consent, unless you record it to commit a crime or a tort. Because you are always a party to your own phone calls, your own consent satisfies the one-party requirement. You do not need to tell the other person you are recording, and you do not need to play a beep tone or an announcement.
Supporting Statutes
Several related statutes work together with section 39-13-601:
- Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-602 establishes criminal penalties for violations, classifying illegal wiretapping as a Class D felony
- Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-603 was repealed in its entirety effective May 28, 2024 by 2024 Tenn. Pub. Ch. 1045 (SB 2221), which eliminated the state civil cause of action for illegal interception
- Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-604 specifically addresses interception of cellular and cordless telephone transmissions with distinct penalty tiers
Types of Phone Calls Covered
The statute covers all forms of wire and electronic communications. In practical terms, this includes:
- Landline telephone calls placed through traditional copper wire networks
- Cell phone calls made through cellular networks
- VoIP calls placed through services like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Skype, and other internet-based platforms
- Video calls with audio on any platform, including FaceTime and WhatsApp
- Conference calls where multiple participants are on the line
The law does not distinguish between personal calls and business calls. The same one-party consent rule applies regardless of the purpose of the call.
What "Intercept" Means Under Tennessee Law
The statute uses the term "intercept" to describe the prohibited conduct. Under Tennessee law, "intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device. This definition is broad enough to cover recording with a smartphone, a dedicated voice recorder, a computer application, or any other tool capable of capturing audio.
Recording your phone call with a smartphone app, an external recorder, or built-in call recording software all fall within the scope of lawful one-party consent recording, as long as you are an active participant in the call.
Can You Record Your Own Phone Calls in Tennessee?
Yes. You have the legal right to record any phone call you participate in. Tennessee's one-party consent law means your own knowledge of and consent to the recording is sufficient. You do not need to:
- Tell the other person you are recording
- Play a beep tone during the call
- Get written or verbal consent from the other party
- Provide any notification before or during the call
This applies whether you are calling someone or receiving a call. The only requirement is that you are an active participant in the conversation being recorded.
The Criminal Purpose Exception
Tennessee law includes an important limitation. Even with one-party consent, you cannot record a conversation for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. This means you cannot legally record a phone call as part of a scheme to blackmail, extort, or harass the other person. Your intent at the time of the recording matters.
Recording to document a legitimate concern, preserve evidence of wrongdoing, or keep a personal record of important conversations is lawful. Recording as part of an illegal plan is not, regardless of consent.
What You Cannot Do
While you can freely record your own calls, the law draws a clear line at recording conversations you are not part of. The following activities are illegal under Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-601:
- Wiretapping someone else's phone line to listen to or record their calls
- Using a listening device to capture a phone call between two other people
- Asking a third party to record a call you are not involved in, without consent from at least one participant
- Intercepting electronic communications such as emails, text messages, or data transmissions without authorization
Even if you have access to the phone, such as a family plan where you pay the bill, you cannot record calls made by other people on that phone unless you are a party to those calls or have consent from at least one participant.
Recording Phone Calls Across State Lines
Why This Matters
The United States does not have a single, uniform recording consent law. Each state sets its own rules. When you place a call from Tennessee to someone in another state, the question becomes: which state's law applies?
The General Rule
No single rule decides which state's law governs an interstate call. Courts in some states, such as Nevada and Washington, apply the law of the state where the recording was made, while the California Supreme Court, in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006), applied California's all-party rule to a Georgia firm that recorded calls with California clients, but only going forward; Georgia law still governed the firm's liability for its past recordings. So if you are in Tennessee and call someone in California, the California standard may apply, and you could face liability under California law for recording that call without the other person's consent, even though the recording would be perfectly legal under Tennessee law.
Two-Party Consent States to Watch
The site counts 13 all-party consent states. These are the ones whose all-party rule reaches phone calls (Oregon's all-party rule covers in-person conversations only; its phone-call rule is one-party):
| State | Key Statute |
|---|---|
| California | Penal Code 632 |
| Connecticut* | Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d |
| Delaware (see note) | 11 Del. C. 1335 and 2402 (conflicting) |
| 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 | NRS 200.620, as read in Lane v. Allstate (1998) and Ditech Financial v. Buckles (2017) |
| New Hampshire | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 570-A:2 |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa.C.S. 5703 |
| Washington | Wash. Rev. Code 9.73.030 |
*Connecticut is criminally a one-party consent state; Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d creates civil liability, not a crime, for recording a telephone call without the consent of all parties. It appears here because of that civil exposure, not a criminal all-party requirement.
Note on Delaware: Delaware has two conflicting statutes, one allowing a participant to record and one requiring all parties' consent, and no controlling court decision resolves the conflict, so getting everyone's consent is the safe course.
For a complete list, see our guide to two-party consent states.
Best Practice for Interstate Calls
When calling someone in a two-party consent state, the safest approach is to inform the other party that you are recording. A simple statement like "I am recording this call for my records" at the beginning of the conversation protects you from potential liability. If the other person objects, you can either stop recording or end the call.
Federal Law: 18 U.S.C. Section 2511
Federal wiretapping law under 18 U.S.C. section 2511 also follows a one-party consent framework. Federal law applies everywhere alongside state law, so a recording must satisfy both. Tennessee's rule closely tracks the federal one-party rule in 18 U.S.C. section 2511(2)(d), including its exception for recordings made to commit a crime or a tort.
Business Phone Call Recording in Tennessee
Employer Recording of Business Calls
Tennessee businesses can record phone calls for legitimate business purposes, including:
- Quality assurance and customer service monitoring
- Training purposes to coach employees on call handling
- Compliance documentation for regulated industries like finance and healthcare
- Dispute resolution to maintain accurate records of verbal agreements
Under the one-party consent framework, a business may record a call when someone on the call for the business knows about and agrees to the recording, such as an employee covered by a written recording policy. An employer's instruction alone is not a participant's consent, and secretly monitoring an employee's calls without any participant's consent can violate Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-601.
Notice Requirements for Businesses
While Tennessee law does not require businesses to notify callers about recording, many businesses choose to provide notice as a best practice. Common methods include:
- A recorded announcement at the beginning of the call ("This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes")
- A periodic beep tone during the call
- Written disclosure in service agreements or terms of service
- Verbal notice from the employee at the start of the conversation
Providing notice protects the business from liability in interstate calls and builds customer trust. It also addresses potential concerns under the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits deceptive practices.
The Tennessee Information Protection Act
Businesses should also consider the Tennessee Information Protection Act (TIPA), which took effect on July 1, 2025. While TIPA primarily addresses consumer data privacy rather than call recording, businesses that process personal information of Tennessee consumers should ensure their recording practices align with both wiretapping and data privacy requirements.
Employee Rights When Being Recorded
Tennessee employees have the right to record their own phone calls at work under the one-party consent law. This includes calls with supervisors, HR representatives, clients, and coworkers. However, employers may have internal policies that restrict or prohibit recording. Violating an employer's recording policy can result in disciplinary action or termination, even though the recording itself is legal under state law. Tennessee is an at-will employment state.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) provides some protection. The NLRB has ruled that overly broad no-recording policies can violate Section 7 of the NLRA when they interfere with employees' rights to engage in protected concerted activity, such as documenting unsafe working conditions or wage violations.
Recording Phone Calls for Evidence in Tennessee
Admissibility in Court
Phone call recordings made in compliance with Tennessee's one-party consent law are generally admissible as evidence in both criminal and civil proceedings. To use a recording as evidence, you typically need to establish:
- Authentication: Prove the recording is genuine, unaltered, and accurately represents the conversation that took place
- Relevance: Show the recording relates to the issues being decided in the case
- Chain of custody: Demonstrate how the recording has been stored and handled since it was made
- Foundation testimony: Provide testimony from a person who can identify the voices on the recording
Criminal Cases
In both criminal and civil proceedings, illegally intercepted recordings are inadmissible under Tenn. Code Ann. section 40-6-307. If you record a phone call without being a party to it and without consent, the recording cannot be used as evidence. The person who made the illegal recording may also face criminal charges under Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-602.
Civil Cases
In civil cases, legally recorded phone calls can serve as evidence in contract disputes, harassment claims, personal injury cases, and family law matters. Tennessee courts evaluate recordings based on their probative value weighed against any potential for unfair prejudice, following the Tennessee Rules of Evidence.
Best Practices for Recording Evidence
If you plan to use a phone call recording as evidence in a Tennessee court:
- Keep the original recording file completely unedited
- Note the date, time, duration, and participants of the call immediately after recording
- Store the original file in a secure location with backup copies
- Do not share the recording unnecessarily before presenting it in court
- Consult with an attorney about proper procedures for introducing the recording as evidence
- Be prepared to testify about the circumstances under which the recording was made
Penalties for Illegal Phone Call Recording in Tennessee
Criminal Penalties
Illegally recording a phone call in Tennessee carries serious criminal penalties:
| Offense | Classification | Potential Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Wiretapping or illegal interception | Class D Felony | 2 to 12 years imprisonment, up to $5,000 fine |
| Disclosing illegally obtained communications | Class D Felony | 2 to 12 years imprisonment, up to $5,000 fine |
| Recording a cell phone call without any party's consent, or disseminating a cordless call (section 39-13-604) | Class A Misdemeanor | Up to 11 months 29 days, up to $2,500 fine |
| Cellular interception with dissemination | Class E Felony | 1 to 6 years imprisonment |
The specific sentence within each range depends on the offender's criminal history under Tennessee's sentencing guidelines.
Civil Liability
Tennessee no longer provides a state civil cause of action for illegal phone call recording. 2024 Tenn. Pub. Ch. 1045 (SB 2221) repealed Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-603 in its entirety, effective May 28, 2024, eliminating the statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorney fee provisions that formerly applied under state law.
Criminal liability under Tenn. Code Ann. sections 39-13-601 and 39-13-602 is unaffected by the repeal. A victim of illegal interception may still be able to bring a civil claim under 18 U.S.C. section 2520, under which a court may award actual damages plus the violator's profits, or statutory damages of the greater of $100 a day or $10,000, plus punitive damages and attorney fees in appropriate cases, for violations of the federal Wiretap Act.
Defenses to Liability
Tennessee's own state-law defense was repealed with section 39-13-603 in 2024. Federal law, 18 U.S.C. section 2520(d), gives a complete defense to a civil or criminal action under the federal Wiretap Act for good-faith reliance on:
- A court warrant or order
- A grand jury subpoena
- A legislative or statutory authorization
Common Scenarios and Questions
Can I Record a Phone Call With My Ex-Spouse?
Yes. As a one-party consent state, you can record phone calls with your ex-spouse as long as you are a participant in the call. This is common in custody and divorce disputes. However, you should not record calls between your child and your ex-spouse unless you are an active participant in the conversation.
Can I Record Customer Service Calls?
Yes. You can record any customer service call you participate in. Many businesses already record these calls on their end. If the company is in Tennessee or another one-party state, your own consent is enough. If it is in an all-party consent state such as California, we found no court that has held that its "this call may be recorded" message is its consent to your recording, so tell the representative you are recording.
Can I Record Calls With Government Officials?
Yes. You can record phone calls with government employees, including calls to state agencies, local government offices, and federal agencies. Government employees acting in their official capacity generally have a reduced expectation of privacy during business calls.
Are Call Recording Apps Legal in Tennessee?
Yes. Apps like Rev Call Recorder, TapeACall, Cube ACR, and other call recording applications are legal to use in Tennessee as long as you are a party to the call being recorded. The app is simply a tool for exercising your legal right to record under the one-party consent law.
AI Transcription and Phone Call Recording
AI-powered transcription services and call recording tools have become widespread. Services like Otter.ai, Fireflies.ai, and built-in transcription features in platforms like Zoom and Microsoft Teams can automatically record and transcribe phone calls.
In Tennessee, using these tools follows the same one-party consent rules as any other recording method. If you are a party to the call, you can use an AI tool to record and transcribe it without notifying the other participants. However, if the call involves participants in two-party consent states, you should notify all participants before activating AI recording or transcription features. Check the other participants' states and the AI notetaker medium with our recording consent checker before you turn it on.
Some AI tools join calls as a separate "participant," appearing as a bot. While this does not change the legal analysis in Tennessee, it may alert the other party to the recording. Review the settings of any AI transcription tool to understand how it appears to other call participants.
Tennessee Recording Laws by Topic
Phone Call Recording | Audio Recording | Video Recording | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras
Back to Tennessee Recording Laws
More Tennessee Recording Topics
More Tennessee Laws
- Tennessee AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Tennessee Dashcam Laws
- Tennessee Data Privacy Laws
- Tennessee Deepfake Laws
- Tennessee Employee Monitoring Laws
- Tennessee GPS Tracking Laws
- Tennessee Police Bodycam Laws
- Tennessee Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to record a phone call in Tennessee without telling the other person?
Yes. Tennessee is a one-party consent state under Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-601. You can record any phone call you participate in without informing or getting permission from the other person on the line.
Can I record a phone call from Tennessee to someone in California?
You should inform the California participant before recording. California is an all-party consent state, and its Supreme Court has applied California law to out-of-state callers who record California residents. Recording without the California participant's consent could expose you to liability under California Penal Code 632.
Can my employer record my work phone calls in Tennessee?
Often, yes. Under Tennessee's one-party consent law, an employer may record business calls when the employer is on the call or when an employee on the call knows about and agrees to the recording, such as through a written recording policy. Secretly monitoring an employee's calls without any participant's consent can violate Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-601.
Can a recorded phone call be used as evidence in Tennessee court?
Yes. Phone call recordings made in compliance with Tennessee's one-party consent law are generally admissible in both criminal and civil proceedings. The recording must be authenticated, relevant to the case, and presented through proper legal procedures.
What is the penalty for illegally recording a phone call in Tennessee?
Illegal wiretapping is a Class D felony under Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-602, punishable by 2 to 12 years in prison and fines up to $5,000. Tennessee's state civil cause of action under former Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-603 was repealed effective May 28, 2024. A victim may still be able to bring a civil claim under 18 U.S.C. section 2520, under which a court may award statutory damages of the greater of $100 a day or $10,000.
Updates
Removed the implication that a federal Wiretap Act civil claim can be brought only in federal court.
We clarified that Kearney applied California law only going forward and softened a statement about what courts have held on recorded-call notices.
We corrected the phone-call page: a company's "this call may be recorded" message has not been held to be its consent to your recording, there is no general rule that the stricter state's law applies to interstate calls, the all-party table now includes Nevada and Delaware, federal damages are discretionary, the good-faith defense is now federal only, and an employer's instruction is not a call participant's consent.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Added a footnote clarifying that Connecticut is criminally a one-party consent state and only imposes civil liability under Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d for recording a call without all-party consent, and fixed four mislabeled or malformed statute links (two pointing to the wrong Tennessee section, one pointing to a Tennessee state-code page for a federal citation, and one with a malformed URL).
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
Corrected this page to reflect that Tennessee repealed its state civil cause of action for illegal call recording (Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-603) effective May 28, 2024; criminal penalties are unchanged, and a federal civil remedy under 18 U.S.C. section 2520 remains available.
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.
Tennessee Code Annotated
§ 39-13-601Wiretapping and electronic surveillance — Prohibited acts — Exceptions.In forcecited in 20 of our articles
(a)(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in §§ 39-13-601 — [former] 39-13-603 [repealed] and title 40, chapter 6, part 3, a person commits an offense who: (A) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at publications.tnsosfiles.com
Cited in 25 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Lawrence v. Lawrence held a parent may vicariously consent under Section 39-13-601 to recording a 2 1/2-year-old child's phone call with the other parent. State of Tennessee v. Henry Floyd Sanders noted that a body-wire recording made with one party's consent is lawful under the section's exceptions.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lawrence v. Lawrence (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2010, 360 S.W.3d 416)“…called upon to construe the term “consent” as it is used in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-601 to determine whether Mother had an “unr…”
- Harold Dean McDaniel v. Kimberly Ruth McDaniel (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2010)“…ourt: I have had an opportunity to look at T.C.A. 39-13-601(a)(1), (A) and (B), and…”
- State of Tennessee v. Henry Floyd Sanders (Tennessee Supreme Court 2014, 452 S.W.3d 300)✓Police recorded a front yard conversation in which a man admitted touching his ex-partner's daughter; the court upheld admission of the recording as a voluntary statement to a confidante and noted that this type of recording is sanctioned as lawful by 39-13-601(b)(4)-(5).
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Tennessee Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Tennessee Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
§ 39-13-602Penalty for violations.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
A person who violates § 39-13-601(a) commits a Class D felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-05-21 · Read the full text in our law library
Also relied on in: Tennessee AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Tennessee Nursing Home Camera Laws: No Statute, Resident Rights, Tennessee Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
§ 39-13-603Civil actions — Injunctive relief — Damages — Defenses — Limitation of actions.Repealedcited in 13 of our articles
(a) Except as provided in § 39-13-601(b)(4), any aggrieved person whose wire, oral or electronic communication is intentionally intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of § 39-13-601 or title 40, chapter 6, part 3 may in a civil action recover from the person or entity that engaged in that…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-06 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at publications.tnsosfiles.com
Cited in 8 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2018
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Robinson v. Fulliton (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2003, 140 S.W.3d 312)“…il damages provision of the Tennessee wiretapping statutes, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-603. The trial court, sitting without a jur…”
- Montgomery v. Montgomery (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2005, 181 S.W.3d 720)“…0), whichever is greater” plus attorney fees and costs. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-603(a)(1). On appeal, Defendant argues that…”
- State of Tennessee v. William Keith Paulson, alias (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee 2009)“…ted.” Violation of subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. T.C.A. § 39-13-603(a)(3). As previously noted, subsection…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Tennessee Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Tennessee Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Rights and Restrictions, Tennessee Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and Provider Rules
§ 40-35-112Sentence ranges.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
(a) A Range I sentence is as follows: (1) For a Class A felony, not less than fifteen (15) nor more than twenty-five (25) years; (2) For a Class B felony, not less than eight (8) nor more than twelve (12) years; (3) For a Class C felony, not less than three (3) nor more than six (6) years; (4)…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-05-21 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 1,170 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Alvarado (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee 1996, 961 S.W.2d 136)“…15) to twenty-five (25) years for a Range I offender. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-112(a)(l). A Range I sentence of three (3)…”
- State v. Smith (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee 2000, 48 S.W.3d 159)“…ted a class A felony, Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-108(c) (1997), Tenn.Code Ann. § 40-35-112(c)(1) (1997), imposing a concurrent, da…”
- Bland v. Dukes (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee 2002, 97 S.W.3d 133)“…aximum of twelve years in Range I for a Class B felony. See Tenn. Code Ann. 40-35-112(a)(2). As for the sentence for voluntar…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Tennessee Age of Consent Laws: Statutes, Penalties and Reporting, Tennessee Assault Laws: Simple vs Aggravated Assault and Penalties, Tennessee Felony Classes and Misdemeanor Penalties (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
- Tenn. Code Ann. Title 39, Chapter 13, Part 6 - Invasion of Privacy(law.justia.com)
- Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-601 - Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance(law.justia.com)
- Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-602 - Penalty for Violations(law.justia.com)
- 2024 Tenn. Pub. Ch. 1045 (SB 2221), § 3: repealed Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-603 (civil action for interception) effective May 28, 2024(publications.tnsosfiles.com).gov
- Tennessee Information Protection Act - Attorney General(tn.gov).gov
- Tennessee Rules of Evidence(tncourts.gov).gov
- Federal Wiretap Act - 18 U.S.C. section 2511(law.cornell.edu)
- National Labor Relations Act(nlrb.gov).gov
- Federal Trade Commission Act(ftc.gov).gov
- Tenn. Code Ann. section 40-35-112 - Sentencing Ranges(law.justia.com)