Wisconsin
Wisconsin Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (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. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Dashcams are legal in Wisconsin and no state law prohibits their use. Video recorded on public roads is permitted, and under Wis. Stat. 968.31, Wisconsin's one-party consent statute, a driver may record in-vehicle audio of any conversation they are part of. Mount the camera so it does not obstruct your view, and keep in mind that Wisconsin also bars nontransparent material on the front windshield (Wis. Stat. 346.88(3)(a)).
Dashcams are legal and widely used in Wisconsin. The state has no specific dashcam statute, so their use is governed by traffic safety laws, the one-party consent wiretapping statute (Wis. Stat. 968.31), and federal regulations.
Are Dashcams Legal in Wisconsin?
Yes. Wisconsin does not prohibit dashcam use. No registration or notification is required.
Windshield Mounting
Wisconsin law (Wis. Stat. 346.88) does two things. Subsection (3)(b) bars any object placed so that it obstructs the driver's clear view through the front windshield. Subsection (3)(a) separately bars any "sign, poster or other nontransparent material upon the front windshield" other than a government-issued sticker, with no obstruction test.
No Wisconsin appellate court has said whether a camera stuck to the glass counts as nontransparent material. The cautious options are a small camera tucked behind the rearview mirror or a dashboard mount that does not touch the windshield. A violation is a traffic forfeiture of $20 to $40 for a first offense (Wis. Stat. 346.95(1)).
Audio Recording and Consent
One-Party Consent
Wisconsin is a one-party consent state under Wis. Stat. 968.31. The exception in Wis. Stat. 968.31(2)(c) applies when you are a party to the conversation or one of the parties has consented. Being in the vehicle is not the same as being a party: a conversation between passengers that you are not part of is not covered unless one of them consents. You can record conversations you take part in, including your exchange with an officer at a traffic stop, without informing anyone.
The exception does not apply when you record to commit a criminal or tortious act or "any other injurious act," such as blackmail or harassment. That last category is broader than federal law, so a recording that is legal under federal law can still be a Wisconsin felony.
Unattended Recording
If your dashcam runs while you are absent, you are no longer a party. Disable the microphone for parking mode.
Dashcam Footage as Evidence
Modified Comparative Fault
Wisconsin follows a modified comparative fault system under Wis. Stat. 895.045. A plaintiff cannot recover if 51% or more at fault. Dashcam footage is critical for establishing fault percentages.
Admissibility
Video footage of the road is generally admissible in Wisconsin courts when authenticated as genuine, unaltered, and relevant.
Audio is different. A private conversation recorded in the car under the one-party rule is an intercepted communication, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that lawful one-party recordings generally cannot be admitted as evidence in chief (State v. Waste Management of Wisconsin, 1978; Wis. Stat. 968.29(3)). Speech with no reasonable expectation of privacy is outside that rule. Check with an attorney before relying on in-car audio.
Commercial Use
Fleet operators use dashcams for safety and FMCSA compliance. Rideshare drivers can use dashcams with one-party consent for conversations they take part in.
Law Enforcement
The Seventh Circuit, whose decisions bind federal courts in Wisconsin, held in ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez (2012), a preliminary-injunction ruling, that applying Illinois's eavesdropping law to people openly recording police doing their jobs in public likely violates the First Amendment. Courts that recognize the right allow reasonable time, place, and manner limits. If an officer gives you a direct order at a stop, comply, keep recording if you can do so without interfering, and challenge the order later.
Penalties
| Violation | Statute | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Windshield obstruction or nontransparent material | Wis. Stat. 346.88 | Forfeiture of $20 to $40 (first offense), $50 to $100 for a repeat within a year (Wis. Stat. 346.95(1)) |
| Audio recording without consent | Wis. Stat. 968.31 | Class H felony: up to 6 years, $10,000 fine |
Civil damages under Wis. Stat. 968.31(2m) include actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees.
More Wisconsin Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism Laws | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant Recording | Dashcam Laws | School Recording | Medical Recording
Back to Wisconsin Recording Laws
More Wisconsin Recording Topics
More Wisconsin Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I need to tell passengers my dashcam records audio in Wisconsin?
No, for conversations you take part in. Wisconsin one-party consent (Wis. Stat. 968.31) allows recording when you are a party or a participant consents. It does not cover a conversation between passengers that you are not part of.
Can dashcam footage be used in Wisconsin courts?
Video footage is generally admissible when authenticated as genuine and relevant. In-car audio of a private conversation is different: even when recording it was legal, Wisconsin courts generally do not admit a one-party recording as evidence in chief (State v. Waste Management, 1978), so ask an attorney before relying on it.
Where should I mount my dashcam?
A small camera behind the rearview mirror, or a dashboard mount that does not touch the glass, is the cautious choice. Wis. Stat. 346.88 bars objects that obstruct your view and also bars nontransparent material on the front windshield other than government stickers, and no court has said whether a glass-mounted camera counts.
Can my dashcam record while parked?
Video is fine. Audio when absent could violate wiretapping law. Disable the microphone.
Can police order me to turn off my dashcam?
Not just because you are recording. The Seventh Circuit, which covers Wisconsin, has held that openly recording police in public is likely protected by the First Amendment (ACLU v. Alvarez, 2012). But officers can give reasonable safety orders, and no court has said you may disregard a direct order at a traffic stop. Comply, keep recording if you can do so without interfering, and challenge the order later.
Updates
Added to the opening summary that Wisconsin also bars nontransparent material on the front windshield, not only objects that block the driver's view.
Corrected the windshield-mounting guidance to include Wisconsin's separate ban on nontransparent material on the front windshield and the actual forfeiture amounts, limited the evidence statement to video and explained the limit on in-car audio, added the 'any other injurious act' limit, and corrected the police-recording answer to reflect the Seventh Circuit's ruling and its limits.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the audio-recording guidance: Wisconsin's one-party exception covers conversations you take part in (or where a participant consents), not every conversation in your vehicle.
Fixed two dead statute citation links (the windshield-obstruction rule and the comparative-fault rule) that used the wrong chapter subchapter designator.
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.
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 968: Commencement Of Criminal Proceedings
§ 968.31Interception and disclosure of wire, electronic or oral communications prohibited.In forcecited in 22 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in ss. 196.63 or 968.28 to 968.30, whoever commits any of the acts enumerated in this section is guilty of a Class H felony: (a) Intentionally intercepts, attempts to intercept or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire, electronic or oral communication. (b) 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. (c) Discloses, or attempts to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication in violation of this section or under circumstances constituting violation of this section. (d) Uses, or attempts to use, the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication in violation of this section or under circumstances constituting violation of this section.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 23 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Maloney held recordings made with one party's prior consent fall under Section 968.31(2)(b) and (c), and that aiding a police sting is not an "injurious act." State v. Gilmore pointed to 968.31(2m) damages and 968.31(1)(e) penalties, reserving suppression for illegal interceptions.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Maloney (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2005, 281 Wis. 2d 595)✓A homicide suspect's girlfriend let police record her hotel room conversations with him in Las Vegas; the court held the videotapes lawful under 968.31(2)(b) and (c) because she was a consenting party, and that helping a lawful sting is not an injurious act.
- State v. Popenhagen (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2008, 309 Wis. 2d 601)“…Arnold, 51 Wis.2d at 442 , 187 N.W.2d 354 (citing Wis. Stat. § 968.31 (2)(b)). However, in considering all th…”
- State v. Gilmore (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1996, 201 Wis. 2d 820)✓Prosecutors filed a public complaint quoting 27 pages of lawfully wiretapped calls; the court held the unsealed filing violated the surveillance law but refused suppression, pointing to the civil action in 968.31(2m) and the criminal penalty in 968.31(1)(e) as the remedies.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin Smart Glasses Recording Laws, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, One-Party Consent States: Complete 2026 Guide
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 346: Rules Of The Road
§ 346.88Obstruction of operator’s view or driving mechanism.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1) No person shall drive a vehicle when it is so loaded or when there are in the front seat such number of persons, or any persons so situated, as to obstruct the view of the operator to the front or to the sides or as to interfere with the operator having free use of both hands and feet to the operating mechanisms or controls of the vehicle. (2) No passenger in a vehicle shall ride in such a position as to interfere with the operator’s view ahead or to the sides or to interfere with the operator’s control of the operating mechanism of the vehicle. (3) (a) No person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sign, poster or other nontransparent material upon the front windshield, front side wings, side windows in the driver’s compartment or rear window of such vehicle other than a certificate or other sticker issued by order of a governmental agency. Such permitted sticker shall not cover more than 15 square inches of glass surface and shall be placed in the lower left-hand corner of the windshield; the left corner being on the driver’s left when seated behind the wheel.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2015
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Richard E. Houghton, Jr. (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2015, 364 Wis. 2d 234)“…pull Houghton over for a violation of Wis. Stat. § 346.88(3)(b) (2011-12),3 "Obstruction of opera…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Dashboard Camera Legality and Privacy Laws: Is It Illegal to Use Dashcams in North America?, Windshield Mounting Restrictions by State (2026 Guide), Wisconsin Windshield Mounting Laws
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 895: Damages, Liability, And Miscellaneous Provisions Regarding Actions In Courts
§ 895.045Contributory negligence.In forcecited in 10 of our articles
(1) Comparative negligence. Contributory negligence does not bar recovery in an action by any person or the person’s legal representative to recover damages for negligence resulting in death or in injury to person or property, if that negligence was not greater than the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought, but any damages allowed shall be diminished in the proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to the person recovering. The negligence of the plaintiff shall be measured separately against the negligence of each person found to be causally negligent. The liability of each person found to be causally negligent whose percentage of causal negligence is less than 51 percent is limited to the percentage of the total causal negligence attributed to that person. A person found to be causally negligent whose percentage of causal negligence is 51 percent or more shall be jointly and severally liable for the damages allowed. (2) Concerted action. Notwithstanding sub. (1), if 2 or more parties act in accordance with a common scheme or plan, those parties are jointly and severally liable for all damages resulting from that action, except as provided in s.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-15 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 69 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Industrial Risk Insurers & Quad Graphics, Inc. v. American Engineering Testing, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2009, 318 Wis. 2d 148)“…g to Leavitt, the policy reasons for the 1995 amendment to Wis. Stat. § 895.045 , which changed the common law on joint…”
- Richards v. Badger Mutual Insurance (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2008, 309 Wis. 2d 541)“…me or plan" that invokes joint and several liability under Wis. Stat. § 895.045 (2) (2005-06). [2] We affirm the court…”
- Fuchsgruber v. Custom Accessories, Inc. (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2001, 244 Wis. 2d 758)“…o the compara *763 tive negligence statute, Wis. Stat. § 895.045 (1) (1999-2000), 1 applies…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Wisconsin Hit and Run Laws: Penalties and What to Do, Personal Injury Settlement Amounts: What Injuries Are Worth
Sources and References
- Wis. Stat. 968.31 - Interception of Communications(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 346.88 - Windshield Requirements(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 895.045 - Comparative Fault(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- FMCSA(fmcsa.dot.gov).gov
- NHTSA(nhtsa.gov).gov