Wisconsin
Wisconsin Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for All Call Types (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. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Wisconsin is a one-party consent state, meaning you may legally record any phone call you are a party to without notifying the other participants. Wis. Stat. 968.31 governs this rule and applies to landline calls, cell calls, and VoIP conversations alike.
Recording phone calls in Wisconsin is straightforward under the state's one-party consent law. Wis. Stat. 968.31 allows you to record any telephone call, video call, or VoIP conversation you participate in without telling the other party. This applies to personal calls, business calls, and calls with government agencies.
This guide covers every aspect of phone call recording in Wisconsin, including interstate calls, business call recording, VoIP and video conferencing, and the penalties for illegal interception.
The Basic Rule: One-Party Consent
How It Applies to Phone Calls
Under Wis. Stat. 968.31(2)(c), it is legal for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication if one party to the communication consents. For phone calls, this means:

- You can record any call you are on. You are the consenting party.
- You do not need to announce you are recording. No verbal notice, beep tone, or written agreement is required.
- You cannot record other people's calls. Installing software or hardware to intercept calls between other people is illegal.
- Your intent matters. You cannot record for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act, or "any other injurious act," such as blackmail or harassment.
Types of Calls Covered
Wisconsin's one-party consent rule applies to all forms of telephone communication:
| Call Type | Covered by Wis. Stat. 968.31? | One-Party Consent Applies? |
|---|---|---|
| Landline calls | Yes | Yes |
| Cell phone calls | Yes | Yes |
| VoIP calls (Skype, WhatsApp, Signal) | Yes | Yes |
| Video calls (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet) | Yes (audio portion) | Yes |
| Cordless phone calls | Yes | Yes |
| Conference calls | Yes | Yes (if you are a participant) |
Recording Personal Phone Calls

Everyday Scenarios
Wisconsin residents commonly record personal phone calls for many practical reasons:
- Customer service calls. Recording calls with insurance companies, utility providers, banks, and other businesses helps preserve details of promises, agreements, or disputes.
- Calls with contractors or service providers. If a plumber, electrician, or contractor makes verbal promises about pricing or timelines, a recording provides documentation.
- Calls with government agencies. Recording calls with the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, DMV, or other state agencies can help you keep an accurate record of instructions or decisions.
- Legal consultations. You can record calls with your own attorney (though attorneys may have their own policies about recording).
- Personal disputes. Recording threatening or harassing phone calls can help you report them to police and keep an accurate record. A restraining-order petition is a civil action, and Wis. Stat. 885.365 generally bars recorded phone calls as evidence in civil actions, so a recorded call usually cannot be played at a Wisconsin restraining order hearing. Keep written notes too, and ask an advocate or attorney how to present your evidence.
Recording Apps and Tools
Several methods exist for recording phone calls on your personal device:
- Built-in phone recording features. Some Android phones include native call recording functionality.
- Third-party recording apps. Apps available for both iOS and Android can record calls, though iOS restrictions may limit some functionality.
- External recording devices. Standalone digital voice recorders with phone adapters can capture both sides of a conversation.
- VoIP service features. Many VoIP services include built-in recording options.
Regardless of the method you use, ensure the recording captures both sides of the conversation clearly for it to be a useful record.
Recording Business Phone Calls

Employer Rights and Obligations
Wisconsin businesses can record phone calls under the one-party consent rule. Common business uses include:
- Quality assurance. Monitoring customer service calls to evaluate employee performance.
- Training. Using recorded calls as training materials for new employees.
- Compliance. Recording calls to ensure regulatory compliance in industries like financial services, healthcare, and insurance.
- Dispute resolution. Preserving records of verbal agreements, orders, and customer complaints.
- Legal protection. Documenting conversations that may be relevant to potential litigation.
Best Practices for Business Call Recording
While Wisconsin law does not require businesses to announce call recording, many businesses choose to provide notice for several reasons:
- Interstate compliance. If the business receives calls from two-party consent states, a clear notice at the start of the call reduces risk under those states' laws, although a notice is not treated as consent everywhere, so some businesses also ask for an express yes.
- Customer trust. Informing callers builds trust and transparency.
- Regulatory requirements. Certain industries (such as financial services under SEC and FINRA rules) may have separate recording notification requirements.
Common methods of providing notice include:
- Automated announcement at the beginning of the call ("This call may be recorded for quality assurance and training purposes")
- Written disclosure in contracts or terms of service
- Website privacy policy disclosures
The Business Extension Exception
Federal law under 18 U.S.C. 2510(5)(a) includes an exception for telephone equipment used "in the ordinary course of business." This allows businesses to monitor calls on their own phone systems when done for legitimate business purposes. This exception works alongside Wisconsin's one-party consent rule to give businesses broad authority to record business calls.
Interstate Phone Call Recording

The Interstate Call Problem
One of the most important considerations for Wisconsin residents is what happens when you call someone in a state with stricter recording laws. When a call crosses state lines, the recording laws of both states may apply.
States With Stricter Laws
Courts do not agree on which state's law governs an interstate call (see below), so treat a call with someone in any of these states as potentially subject to that state's all-party rule:
| State | Consent Requirement | Key Statute |
|---|---|---|
| Illinois (Wisconsin's neighbor) | All-party | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 |
| California | All-party | Cal. Penal Code 632 |
| Connecticut | Civil all-party (criminal wiretap law is one-party; Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d imposes civil liability absent all-party consent, notice, or a warning tone) | Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d |
| Florida | All-party | Fla. Stat. 934.03 |
| 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 |
| New Hampshire | All-party | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 570-A:2 |
| Pennsylvania | All-party | 18 Pa.C.S. 5704 |
| Washington | All-party | Wash. Rev. Code 9.73.030 |
| Nevada | All-party for phone calls (in-person recording is one-party) | Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620 |
| Delaware | Conflicting statutes; get everyone's consent to be safe | 11 Del. C. 1335, 2402 |
Oregon also requires all-party consent, but only for in-person conversations; its phone-call rule is one-party.
The Illinois Border Issue
Because Wisconsin shares a long border with Illinois, the interstate recording issue comes up frequently. Illinois is an all-party consent state under 720 ILCS 5/14-2, which means recording a call with someone in Illinois without their knowledge could violate Illinois law, even if you are calling from Wisconsin.
Best practice for Wisconsin-Illinois calls: Inform the Illinois party that you are recording, or get their explicit consent before beginning the recording.
Which State's Law Controls?
There is no definitive federal rule about which state's law applies to interstate calls. Courts have taken different approaches:
- Some courts apply the law of the state where the recording is made (for example, the Nevada Supreme Court in Ditech Financial v. Buckles, 2017, and a Pennsylvania appeals court applying New York's one-party law to a call recorded in New York in Commonwealth v. Larrison, 2000)
- Some courts look to the state where the non-consenting party is located (in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 2006, the California Supreme Court held that California law governs an out-of-state firm's recordings of calls with Californians going forward, though it applied Georgia law to the firm's past conduct)
Because you could face exposure under the other state's law, the safest approach is to follow the stricter state's requirements when making interstate calls.
VoIP and Video Call Recording
How Wisconsin Law Applies to VoIP
VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) calls are treated the same as traditional phone calls under Wisconsin law. Wis. Stat. 968.27 defines "electronic communication" broadly enough to encompass VoIP transmissions. The one-party consent rule applies.
This covers calls made through:
- Zoom
- Microsoft Teams
- Google Meet
- Skype
- FaceTime (audio)
- Discord
- Slack calls
- Any other internet-based calling platform
Video Conferencing With Multiple Participants
When recording a video conference with participants from multiple states, the recording laws of all participants' states may apply. If any participant is in a two-party consent state, the safest course is clear notice at the start plus every participant's agreement, ideally an express yes. Useful steps:
- Announce at the beginning of the call that the session will be recorded
- Use the platform's built-in recording notification (Zoom, Teams, and Meet all notify participants when recording begins)
- Obtain consent from all participants before activating recording
Most business video conferencing platforms now include automatic notification features that alert all participants when recording is active. Using these features reduces risk across state lines, although a notice alone is not treated as consent everywhere.
Platform-Specific Recording Features
Most major video conferencing platforms have built-in recording features:
- Zoom notifies all participants when recording starts and provides a consent prompt for cloud recordings
- Microsoft Teams displays a recording banner visible to all participants
- Google Meet announces when recording begins and requires the host to start recording
- Webex provides recording notifications and can restrict recording to hosts only
Using these built-in features reduces risk because all participants receive notice, although a notice alone is not treated as consent everywhere.
Federal Law and Phone Call Recording
The Federal Wiretap Act
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2511) follows a one-party consent standard, consistent with Wisconsin law. Under federal law, it is legal to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication if one party to the communication consents, unless the interception is for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Wisconsin's limit is broader: it also removes the participant exception for recording to commit "any other injurious act," so a call recording that is legal under federal law can still be a Wisconsin felony.
Federal penalties for illegal wiretapping include up to five years in prison. Under 18 U.S.C. 2520, a court may award the greater of actual damages or statutory damages of $100 a day or $10,000, plus punitive damages and attorney fees; the award is discretionary, not a fixed amount per violation.
FCC Regulations
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued guidance on phone call recording. Note: 47 C.F.R. § 64.501, which formerly required carriers to inform customers of call recording, was removed from the Code of Federal Regulations in 2017 and is no longer in force. There is no current FCC rule requiring a beep tone, notification, or disclosure for private call recording; Wisconsin's one-party consent law governs individual callers and businesses regardless.
Penalties for Illegal Phone Call Recording
Criminal Penalties
Illegally intercepting phone calls in Wisconsin is a Class H felony under Wis. Stat. 968.31:
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Illegal interception of phone calls | Class H Felony | 6 years prison, $10,000 fine |
| Disclosing illegally intercepted calls | Class H Felony | 6 years prison, $10,000 fine |
| Using content of illegally intercepted calls | Class H Felony | 6 years prison, $10,000 fine |
Civil Liability
Under Wis. Stat. 968.31(2m), victims of illegal phone call interception can sue for actual damages (minimum $100 per day or $1,000, whichever is higher), punitive damages, and attorney fees.
Using Phone Call Recordings as Evidence
Admissibility in Wisconsin Courts
Recording a call legally and using it in court are separate questions, and Wisconsin is strict about the second. Wis. Stat. 885.365 makes recorded telephone conversations "totally inadmissible" in Wisconsin civil actions. Its notice exception covers only a recording "made in a manner other than by interception," and Wisconsin defines interception as acquiring a call's contents with any device (Wis. Stat. 968.27(9)), so a call you record with an app or recorder does not fit it on the statute's terms.
In criminal cases too, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held in State v. Waste Management of Wisconsin, 81 Wis. 2d 555 (1978) that one-party consent tapes are lawful but their contents "cannot be admitted as evidence in chief" under Wis. Stat. 968.29(3). The exceptions are narrow: recordings made by or with police in felony cases (968.29(3)(b)), a party who opens the door by relying on the transcript (State v. Albrecht, 1994), and small-claims cases, which are not bound by the ordinary rules of evidence (Wis. Stat. 799.209(2)). Talk to a Wisconsin attorney before planning a case around a recorded call. Where a recording can be offered, you will need to:
- Authenticate the recording by testifying about when, where, and how it was made
- Demonstrate that the recording has not been altered
- Show that the recording is relevant to the matter at issue
- Be prepared to address hearsay objections (many exceptions apply to recorded statements)
Preserving Phone Call Recordings
For maximum evidentiary value:
- Save the original file without editing
- Note the date, time, and participants immediately after the call
- Back up the recording to cloud storage and a separate device
- Do not share the recording on social media before legal proceedings
- Keep a log of all recorded calls with dates and summaries
More Wisconsin Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
Back to Wisconsin Recording Laws
More Wisconsin Recording Topics
More Wisconsin Laws
- Wisconsin AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Wisconsin Dashcam Laws
- Wisconsin Data Privacy Laws
- Wisconsin Deepfake Laws
- Wisconsin Employee Monitoring Laws
- Wisconsin GPS Tracking Laws
- Wisconsin Police Bodycam Laws
- Wisconsin Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Wisconsin without telling the other person?
Yes. Wisconsin is a one-party consent state under Wis. Stat. 968.31. You can record any phone call you participate in without informing the other party. This applies to landline calls, cell phone calls, VoIP calls, and video calls.
Can I record a call with someone in Illinois from Wisconsin?
Wisconsin law allows it, but Illinois is an all-party consent state, and courts do not agree on which state's law governs a call across state lines. Because you could face exposure under Illinois law, the safest approach is to inform the Illinois party that you are recording or get their explicit consent before beginning the recording.
Can my employer record my phone calls at work in Wisconsin?
Yes. Under Wisconsin's one-party consent law, an employer can record business calls when an employee participant consents. Many employers use automated announcements to notify callers. The federal business extension exception also allows monitoring calls on business phone systems for legitimate business purposes.
Is it legal to record a Zoom call in Wisconsin?
Yes. VoIP and video calls are covered by the same one-party consent rule as traditional phone calls. If you are a participant, you can record. However, if participants are in two-party consent states, announce the recording at the start (or use the platform's recording notification) and, where possible, get an express yes from each participant. A notice reduces risk but is not treated as consent in every state.
What happens if I illegally record a phone call in Wisconsin?
Illegal phone call interception is a Class H felony under Wis. Stat. 968.31, punishable by up to 6 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The victim can also sue for civil damages including a minimum of $100 per day or $1,000 (whichever is higher), punitive damages, and attorney fees.
Updates
Corrected the description of Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (California law was applied only to future calls; Georgia law governed the firm's past conduct) and fixed a sentence about restraining-order hearings.
Corrected the page to describe interstate calls as unsettled rather than governed by the stricter state, added Nevada and Delaware to the all-party table, explained that recorded phone calls are generally inadmissible in Wisconsin civil actions under Wis. Stat. 885.365 and that lawful one-party tapes generally cannot be used as evidence in chief (State v. Waste Management, 1978), added the 'any other injurious act' limit, and described federal Wiretap Act damages accurately. We corrected statements that a recording notice ensures compliance in all-party states (a notice reduces risk but is not consent everywhere), and replaced advice that a recorded call can serve as restraining-order evidence, since Wisconsin bars recorded phone calls in civil actions such as injunction hearings; reporting the calls to police remains an option. Clarified that announcing a recording is not treated as consent in every all-party state, and tightened the explanation of why recorded calls are generally barred at Wisconsin restraining-order hearings.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the statute cited for Wisconsin's private-citizen phone-call consent rule from Wis. Stat. 968.31(2)(b), which actually governs law-enforcement recording, to the correct 968.31(2)(c); removed an unsupported 'FCC 24-24' call-recording claim; and clarified that Connecticut's all-party rule is a civil statute, not the state's one-party criminal wiretap law.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
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
§ 968.27Definitions.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
In ss. 968.28 to 968.375: (1) “Aggrieved person” means a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, electronic or oral communication or a person against whom the interception was directed. (2) “Aural transfer” means a transfer containing the human voice at any point from the point of origin to the point of reception. (3) “Contents,” when used with respect to any wire, electronic, or oral communication, includes any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication. (4) “Electronic communication” means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence of any nature wholly or partially transmitted by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system. “Electronic communication” does not include any of the following: (a) The radio portion of a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless telephone handset and the base unit. (b) Any wire or oral communication. (c) Any communication made through a tone-only paging device. (d) Any communication from a tracking device.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 19 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Nicolas Subdiaz-Osorio (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2014, 357 Wis. 2d 41)“…serious physical injury 11 According to Wis. Stat. § 968.27(13) (2009-10), "Pen regist…”
- State v. Gilmore (Wisconsin Supreme Court 1996, 201 Wis. 2d 820)“…the Wisconsin Electronic Surveillance Control Law (WESCL), Wis. Stat. §§ 968.27-968.37 . We hold that while WESC…”
- State v. Sveum (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin 2009, 319 Wis. 2d 498)“…See Wisconsin's Electronic Surveillance Control Law, Wis. Stat. §§ 968.27 -.33 (2007-08). 7 B…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Wisconsin Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Wisconsin Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Wisconsin Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 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)
§ 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
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 137 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: California Pixel-Wiretap Rulings Split the Same Week: Blue Shield Claim Dismissed, BlueChew Claims Advance, Connecticut Employee Monitoring Notice Law Takes Effect Oct. 2026, Supreme Court Rejects "Clean-Hands" Wiretap Loophole, Sends Influencer's Case Back to Sixth Circuit
§ 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)
§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 130 of our articles
Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 860 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walker v. Darby (1990) held a 2520 plaintiff need not prove the contents of intercepted conversations, only interception and a justified expectation against it. Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) barred 2520 damages against defendants who took no part in the interception, obtained the tape lawfully, and disclosed a matter of public concern.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573)✓A postal letter carrier said three supervisors wired an intercom near his workstation to listen in. Reversing summary judgment, the Eleventh Circuit held a section 2520 plaintiff can show interception without proving the contents of specific conversations.
- Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41)“…disclosure, or use is entitled to recover civil damages, 18 U. S. C. § 2520 . Title III also bars the use as eviden…”
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)“…7 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(4), or alternatively, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (a), or alternatively, for violations o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Otter.ai Faces Consolidated Wiretap Class Action Over Its AI Meeting Notetaker and All-Party Consent, Otter.ai Lawsuit: Judge Lets Core Privacy Claims Proceed (2026), Supreme Court Tosses Conviction Over a Secretly Recorded FaceTime Call (2026)
Sources and References
- Wis. Stat. 968.31 - Interception and Disclosure(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 968.31(2m) - Civil Remedies(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wis. Stat. 968.27 - Definitions(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC(fcc.gov).gov
- Wisconsin DOR(revenue.wi.gov).gov
- Wisconsin DOT - DMV(wisconsindot.gov).gov
- Wisconsin State Law Library(wilawlibrary.gov).gov