Recordings as Evidence: US Court Rules by State
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited September 12, 2026). · 55 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
A recording can be powerful evidence, but a lawful recording is not automatically admissible. A court may separately examine how it was obtained, whether it is authentic, why it matters, whether it contains hearsay, whether the offered excerpt is complete, and whether a statute requires exclusion or suppression.
Compare all 50 states and D.C. · Explore the cited laws
Information last verified on September 11, 2026.
Jurisdiction scope: This guide covers federal evidence principles and a bounded directory for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It does not decide choice of law, local procedure, or admissibility in a particular case.
Which Law Controls a Recording in Court?
The forum and proceeding come first. Federal Rules of Evidence 101 and 1101 govern the federal courts and proceedings they specify, with listed exceptions including grand-jury proceedings. A state court applies its own evidence law even when federal interception law also matters.
Choice of law can be disputed when more than one jurisdiction is involved. This guide does not resolve that case-specific question.
Federal interception law supplies a separate boundary. Section 2511(2)(d) permits a private person to intercept when the person is a party or one party has consented, unless the interception serves a criminal or tortious purpose. Section 2515 bars receipt in specified proceedings of intercepted wire or oral communication contents and derivatives when disclosure would violate Chapter 119. Its text does not create a blanket rule for every electronic communication.
Who Decides Whether the Recording Comes In?
The judge does, and the ruling can be made before the jury hears anything. Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) provides that "[t]he court must decide any preliminary question about whether a witness is qualified, a privilege exists, or evidence is admissible," and that "[i]n so deciding, the court is not bound by evidence rules, except those on privilege" (Fed. R. Evid. 104).
Rule 1101(d)(1) states the same limit from the other direction. The Federal Rules of Evidence, "except for those on privilege," do not apply to "the court's determination, under Rule 104(a), on a preliminary question of fact governing admissibility" (Fed. R. Evid. 1101). The material a party relies on to make that preliminary showing therefore does not itself have to satisfy the hearsay and authentication rules.
Rule 104(c) requires the court to "conduct any hearing on a preliminary question so that the jury cannot hear it" when the hearing involves the admissibility of a confession, when a testifying criminal defendant so requests, or when "justice so requires." A dispute over a recording can accordingly be resolved outside the jury's hearing. This is federal practice; a state court applies its own evidence law, which commonly contains a parallel provision.
How Do You Authenticate Audio or Video?
Authentication asks whether the item is what its proponent says it is. Rule 901(a) sets that threshold, while Rule 901(b) gives nonexclusive examples including a witness with knowledge, distinctive characteristics, voice identification, and telephone-call circumstances.
A witness may explain who made, received, observed, downloaded, or stored the recording. The relevant foundation depends on the dispute: speaker identity, date, device operation, export method, file history, or alleged alteration. No single ritual is required for every file, and authentication does not decide legality or ultimate weight.
What Does Laying the Foundation Actually Look Like?
Rule 901(b) introduces its list as "examples only — not a complete list — of evidence that satisfies the requirement," so no single script is required for every file (Fed. R. Evid. 901). Which witness is needed depends on what the opposing party actually disputes.
- A participant in the conversation. Rule 901(b)(1) accepts "[t]estimony that an item is what it is claimed to be."
- Someone who knows the speaker's voice. Rule 901(b)(5) accepts "[a]n opinion identifying a person's voice — whether heard firsthand or through mechanical or electronic transmission or recording — based on hearing the voice at any time under circumstances that connect it with the alleged speaker."
- Call circumstances, for a phone recording. Rule 901(b)(6) accepts "evidence that a call was made to the number assigned at the time to: (A) a particular person, if circumstances, including self-identification, show that the person answering was the one called."
- Someone who can describe the device or app. Rule 901(b)(9) accepts "[e]vidence describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result," which is the provision that fits a recorder, a phone app, a cloud export, or a video management system.
- The file itself. Rule 901(b)(4) allows authentication from "[t]he appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances."
Authentication is a threshold, not a verdict on accuracy. Rule 901(a) asks only for "evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is," which leaves the remaining objections, and the weight the trier of fact gives the recording, untouched. This is the federal rule; several states in the directory below decide recording disputes under their own Rule 901.
Is Chain of Custody Required?
The phrase does not appear in Rule 901. Chain of custody describes a kind of proof, not a separate rule: a documented history of who held the file and how it was copied is one way to satisfy Rule 901(b)(1), (b)(4) or (b)(9), and Rule 901(b) is expressly a non-exhaustive list of examples.
Where that history matters most is the duplicate question. Rule 1003 makes a duplicate "admissible to the same extent as the original unless a genuine question is raised about the original's authenticity or the circumstances make it unfair to admit the duplicate" (Fed. R. Evid. 1003). A gap in the handling history is the material an opponent uses to raise that genuine question, which is a practical reason to document transfers even though no rule commands it.
Do Hearsay and Completeness Still Apply?
Yes. A spoken assertion offered for its truth may be hearsay under Rules 801 and 802 unless an exclusion or exception applies. A single recording can contain several statements with different treatment, so the proponent must identify the purpose for each important statement.
Rule 106 permits an adverse party to require another part, or another statement, to be considered at the same time when fairness requires context, including over a hearsay objection. Rules 1001 through 1004 govern proof of recorded content. Rule 1002 generally calls for an original, while Rule 1003 generally permits an accurate duplicate unless authenticity is genuinely questioned or admission would be unfair.
Are Transcripts and Edited Excerpts Admissible?
The recording, not the transcript, is normally the proof of what was said. Rule 1002 requires "[a]n original writing, recording, or photograph" to prove its content "unless these rules or a federal statute provides otherwise" (Fed. R. Evid. 1002).
Rule 1001(d) defines the original of electronically stored information as "any printout — or other output readable by sight — if it accurately reflects the information," and Rule 1001(e) defines a duplicate as "a counterpart produced by a mechanical, photographic, chemical, electronic, or other equivalent process or technique that accurately reproduces the original" (Fed. R. Evid. 1001). Both definitions can reach an exported file: an output of electronically stored information that accurately reflects the information is an original under Rule 1001(d), while a copy produced by a process that accurately reproduces the original is a duplicate governed by Rule 1003.
Rule 1004 lists when other evidence of content becomes admissible: when "all the originals are lost or destroyed, and not by the proponent acting in bad faith," when an original "cannot be obtained by any available judicial process," when the party against whom it would be offered controlled the original and failed to produce it after notice, or when the item "is not closely related to a controlling issue" (Fed. R. Evid. 1004).
A transcript usually functions as an aid to the listener rather than as the proof itself, and the 2024 amendments added a rule for that category. Rule 107(b) provides that "[a]n illustrative aid is not evidence and must not be provided to the jury during deliberations unless: (1) all parties consent; or (2) the court, for good cause, orders otherwise" (Fed. R. Evid. 107). Where the underlying material is genuinely voluminous, Rule 1006(a) instead lets the court "admit as evidence a summary, chart, or calculation offered to prove the content of voluminous admissible writings, recordings, or photographs that cannot be conveniently examined in court," and Rule 1006(b) requires the proponent to make the originals or duplicates available to the other parties.
Trimming a clip raises the other half of the question. Rule 106 provides: "If a party introduces all or part of a statement, an adverse party may require the introduction, at that time, of any other part — or any other statement — that in fairness ought to be considered at the same time. The adverse party may do so over a hearsay objection." A party who offers a short excerpt should expect the parts that fairness requires for context to be in play, including material the excerpt left out.
Can an Authentic Recording Still Be Excluded?
Yes. Rules 401 and 402 require relevance, and Rule 403 permits exclusion when probative value is substantially outweighed by dangers such as unfair prejudice, confusion, delay, or cumulative proof.
That sequence matters. Authentication does not cure hearsay. Lawful acquisition does not overcome irrelevance. An illegal acquisition does not create suppression unless the governing law supplies that consequence. A damages provision compensates a violation but does not itself direct a judge to exclude evidence.
What Happens When the Recording Was Made Unlawfully?
"Illegal to make" and "inadmissible" are separate conclusions. Exclusion needs a provision that directs exclusion; a statute that creates a crime or a damages claim is doing something else with the same violation.
Federal wiretap law contains both kinds of provision. 18 U.S.C. § 2515 is the exclusion side: "Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter" (18 U.S.C. § 2515).
Two limits sit on the face of that sentence. It covers a "wire or oral communication," and it operates only where "the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter." Section 2511(2)(d) is the provision that most often removes the violation § 2515 depends on: "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State" (18 U.S.C. § 2511).
The damages side is separate. Section 2520(a) gives "any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter" a civil action, "[e]xcept as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii)" (18 U.S.C. § 2520). That provision compensates the person recorded. It does not instruct a judge to keep anything out.
States divide along the same line, and the directory below shows the spread. California Penal Code § 632(d) is an exclusion provision written to reach beyond criminal court: "Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section is not admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding" (Cal. Penal Code § 632). In People v. Guzman (2019) the California Supreme Court held that, to the extent § 632(d) "demanded the suppression of relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding, it was abrogated when the voters approved Proposition 8," and noted that the Truth-in-Evidence provision it relied on "applies only in criminal cases," so nothing in that decision affects § 632(d) in other contexts (People v. Guzman, S242244 (2019)). Washington's RCW 9.73.050 names civil and criminal cases expressly. Wyoming's § 7-3-710 supplies damages and no suppression language at all. The same unlawful recording can therefore be excluded in one forum and merely actionable in another, which is why the state row matters more than the federal headline.
Does the Answer Change in Civil, Criminal and Family Court?
Begin with which rulebook applies. Rule 1101(b) provides that the Federal Rules of Evidence apply in "civil cases and proceedings, including bankruptcy, admiralty, and maritime cases," in "criminal cases and proceedings," and in "contempt proceedings, except those in which the court may act summarily." That single list applies one rulebook to both, so the civil and criminal labels do not change the authentication requirement in federal court.
Rule 1101(d) is where the type of proceeding does change the answer. The rules, other than those on privilege, "do not apply to" grand-jury proceedings and to "miscellaneous proceedings such as: extradition or rendition; issuing an arrest warrant, criminal summons, or search warrant; a preliminary examination in a criminal case; sentencing; granting or revoking probation or supervised release; and considering whether to release on bail or otherwise." A recording that would draw an authentication objection at trial is not being measured against that rule in those settings.
Family court is state court, so the forum's own evidence law controls, and some state statutes address family matters expressly. Virginia § 8.01-420.2 bars a mechanical recording of a telephone conversation from any civil proceeding unless all parties knew of the recording (a fact the statute requires be shown by a declaration at the beginning of the portion offered), or the offered portion "contains admissions that, if true, would constitute criminal conduct which is the basis for the civil action, and one of the parties was aware of the recording and the proceeding is not one for divorce, separate maintenance or annulment of a marriage" (Va. Code § 8.01-420.2). By the statute's own terms, that second route is closed in Virginia divorce, separate maintenance and annulment cases.
Other states reach family proceedings through general language instead of naming them. California's § 632(d) exclusion is written for "any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding," and Guzman left that noncriminal reach intact even as it removed the criminal-case remedy. Beyond what the directory below documents state by state, this guide states no family-court rule for the remaining jurisdictions, and it does not predict how a judge will exercise discretion under a state's rules.
Phone Calls, Silent Video, Doorbell Cameras and Body Cameras
Federal wiretap law is organized around sound rather than images. Section 2510(1) defines a "wire communication" as "any aural transfer" made through wire, cable or like facilities, and § 2510(2) defines an "oral communication" as "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." To "intercept" is "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" (§ 2510(4)) (18 U.S.C. § 2510).
That is why the audio track drives the analysis. Section 2515's exclusion is keyed to a "wire or oral communication" that "has been intercepted," so footage carrying no sound does not present the question § 2515 asks. Whether some other federal or state law reaches the images is a separate question; state video-surveillance and voyeurism statutes differ, and this guide does not resolve them for a particular camera.
A doorbell camera that records sound can be capturing an oral communication, since § 2510(2) turns on whether the speaker's expectation against interception is one the circumstances justify. For such a device the interception question follows the sound rather than the images, and which state's consent rule governs is the choice-of-law question this guide does not resolve; see the state recording-law guides for acquisition rules and the directory below for the evidence rules.
Body-worn camera footage raises a different problem: obtaining it rather than admitting it. South Carolina § 23-1-240(G)(1) provides that "[d]ata recorded by a body-worn camera is not a public record subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act," while § 23-1-240(G)(5) entitles the subject of the recording, "a criminal defendant if the recording is relevant to a pending criminal action," and "a civil litigant if the recording is relevant to a pending civil action" to request and receive the data "pursuant to the South Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure, the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, or a court order" (S.C. Code § 23-1-240). In that state a records request and a litigation route are separate doors to the same file.
California runs the same footage through its public-records act on a timetable instead. Government Code § 7923.625 provides that "commencing July 1, 2019, a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident, as defined in subdivision (e), may be withheld only as follows," and then sets out the permitted grounds and periods for withholding (Cal. Gov. Code § 7923.625). Body-camera statutes vary considerably; read these two as examples of the two common designs, not as a national rule.
How Should You Preserve and Offer a Recording?
As practical handling suggestions, keep the native file and full conversation when possible, avoid edits to the source, and document copies or transfers. Label an edited excerpt as a derivative and retain the unedited version.
These are practical handling steps, not a promise of admissibility. In federal civil litigation, Rules 26 and 34 govern discovery scope and production of electronically stored information. Rule 37(e) addresses ESI that should have been preserved in anticipation or conduct of litigation, was lost because reasonable steps were not taken, and cannot be restored or replaced.
Preservation Duties and Spoliation in Federal Civil Cases
A recording in a party's hands is discoverable material. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a)(1)(A) reaches it by name: a party may request "any designated documents or electronically stored information — including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations — stored in any medium from which information can be obtained" (Fed. R. Civ. P. 34).
Rule 37(e) supplies the consequence when it disappears. It applies "[i]f electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be restored or replaced through additional discovery" (Fed. R. Civ. P. 37).
The rule then splits into two tiers, and the difference between them is intent. Under Rule 37(e)(1), the court, "upon finding prejudice to another party from loss of the information, may order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice." Under Rule 37(e)(2), "only upon finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information's use in the litigation" may the court "presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party," instruct the jury that it may or must presume as much, or "dismiss the action or enter a default judgment."
Three evidence rules explain why the native file is worth keeping even apart from Rule 37(e). Rule 1001(d) defines the original of electronically stored information in terms of output that "accurately reflects the information," and Rule 1004(a) opens the door to other evidence of content only where "all the originals are lost or destroyed, and not by the proponent acting in bad faith." Rule 901(b)(9) is the reason to document the device and the export path, since authentication can rest on "[e]vidence describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result."
Scope note: Rule 37(e) governs federal civil litigation. State spoliation doctrines are separate bodies of law and vary, and nothing quoted here states their standards.
Recording Admissibility Rules by State
Each section identifies one audited issue or provides navigation to the existing state guide. A row about authentication does not decide suppression. A law-enforcement interception procedure does not automatically apply to a private participant recording. A civil damages remedy is not an exclusion rule.
The table below covers 9 states in the Northeast.
| State or D.C. | Reviewed rule and limits |
|---|---|
Connecticut | Section 52-184a, titled Evidence obtained illegally by electronic device inadmissible, states a one-sentence exclusion rule: no evidence obtained illegally by the use of any electronic device is admissible in any court of this state. The statute sits in chapter 899 (Evidence) of title 52 (Civil Actions), dates to 1967 and carries no later amendment; its text is not limited to a listed proceeding type or to a civil or criminal label, and it states no separate exception. It does not itself define what recording conduct is illegal; that depends on Connecticut's separate eavesdropping and interception statutes, which the section's own notes cross-reference at Sec. 53a-187 et seq. Official authority: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-184a. For the acquisition-law background, see the Connecticut recording-law guide. |
Maine | Section 713, titled Evidence, states that the contents of an interception are not admissible in court, subject to two stated exceptions: contents of an interception of an oral or wire communication legally obtained under the laws of another jurisdiction in which the interception occurred, and contents legally obtained under section 712, subsection 2 or 3, each admissible subject to the Maine Rules of Evidence and, in the second case, only where related to the administration of criminal justice, the administration of juvenile justice, or the statutory functions of a state agency. The reach of the rule turns on the chapter's own definition: section 709 defines intercept as hearing or recording, or aiding another to hear or record, the contents of a wire or oral communication through an intercepting device by a person other than the sender or receiver of that communication, a person within the range of normal unaided hearing, or a person given prior authority by the sender or receiver. A recording made by a participant therefore falls outside that definition and outside this rule. Official authority: Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 713. For the acquisition-law background, see the Maine recording-law guide. |
Massachusetts | Paragraph P permits a defendant in a Massachusetts criminal trial to move to suppress intercepted wire or oral communications, or derivative evidence, on six enumerated grounds including unlawful interception and nonconformity with the statute or warrant. Paragraph P is not a civil admissibility rule. No civil admissibility rule is established by paragraph P. Paragraph Q separately creates a civil damages remedy for an aggrieved person, but that remedy is not an exclusion rule. The motion belongs to a defendant in a criminal trial and applies to an interception within section 99. The section defines interception to include secret recording without prior authority of all parties, subject to its law-enforcement and other exceptions. Official authority: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(P). For the acquisition-law background, see the Massachusetts recording-law guide. |
New Hampshire | Clark construes570-A:6 suppression as requiring a felony interception violation, not merely a misdemeanor participant interception. Participant status alone does not settle felony versus misdemeanor: the opinion distinguishes willful and knowing mental states and remands application to the trial court. It does not declare the recording lawful or finally admissible. Section570-A:6 lists trials, hearings and other specified state/local proceedings. Clark arose in a criminal interlocutory appeal; no separate civil application is decided here. Clark rejects automatic suppression for every chapter violation; its felony-interception condition and remand must be stated, with other evidence rules separate. Official authority: N.H. RSA 570-A:2; Official authority: N.H. RSA 570-A:6; Official authority: State v. Clark, 2024 N.H. 64. For the acquisition-law background, see the New Hampshire recording-law guide. Read the full opinion. |
New Jersey | Section 2A:156A-21 lets any aggrieved person in a trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court or other authority of this State move to suppress the contents of an intercepted wire, electronic, or oral communication, or evidence derived from it, on the grounds that the communication was unlawfully intercepted, that the order of authorization is insufficient on its face, or that the interception did not conform to the order of authorization or to the requirements of section 12 of the act. The motion must be made at least 10 days before the proceeding unless there was no opportunity or the moving party was unaware of the grounds, and motions by coindictees are heard in a single consolidated hearing. If the motion is granted, the entire contents of all intercepted communications obtained during or after an interception determined to violate the act on those grounds, and evidence derived from them, shall not be received in evidence in that trial, hearing, or proceeding. The State may appeal an order granting the motion on the certification the section describes. This procedure belongs to New Jersey's wiretap act and runs to an aggrieved person in a covered proceeding. Official authority: N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:156A-21. For the acquisition-law background, see the New Jersey recording-law guide. |
New York | CPLR 4506(1) bars communications and derivative evidence obtained through conduct constituting Penal Law § 250.05 eavesdropping from the listed proceedings, subject to its civil-or-criminal proceeding exception against a person who committed or allegedly committed the eavesdropping. Subsections (3)-(4) provide a suppression motion for an aggrieved person who is a party in a civil proceeding. The civil suppression motion requires aggrieved-person status, party status, and one of the grounds in subdivision (3). The subdivision (1) exception must be preserved. Subdivision (1) reaches listed trials and proceedings but subdivision (3) creates the motion only for a party in a civil proceeding. Do not describe CPLR 4506 as a general criminal suppression procedure. Official authority: N.Y. CPLR 4506. For the acquisition-law background, see the New York recording-law guide. |
Pennsylvania | Section 5721.1, titled Evidentiary disclosure of contents of intercepted communication or derivative evidence, bars disclosing the contents of a wire, electronic, or oral communication, or evidence derived from it, in a proceeding before a Commonwealth court, board, or agency, subject to a stated exception in paragraph (2). Subsection (b) permits an aggrieved person who is a party to that proceeding to move to exclude the evidence on stated grounds, including interception without required court authorization, an order unsupported by probable cause, a facially insufficient order, material deviation from the order, coerced consent, or the absence of a required court order; the movant generally carries the burden, but the Commonwealth carries the burden by a preponderance of the evidence on an authorization-related ground. Evidence is not excluded if the Commonwealth shows an independent basis apart from the excluded communication, and the Commonwealth may appeal an exclusion order. The statute calls these procedures the only judicial remedies and sanctions for a violation of this kind; it applies to an interception governed by Pennsylvania's wiretap act and, for the motion, to an aggrieved party, not to every private participant recording. Official authority: 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1. For the acquisition-law background, see the Pennsylvania recording-law guide. |
Rhode Island | Section 12-5.1-12, titled Suppression of evidence, lets any aggrieved person move to suppress the contents of an intercepted wire, electronic, or oral communication, or evidence derived from them, on the grounds that the communication was unlawfully intercepted, that the order under which it was intercepted is insufficient on its face, that the interception did not conform to the order, that service was not made as provided in section 12-5.1-11, or that the seal provided in section 12-5.1-8(b) is absent without satisfactory explanation. The motion must be made before the trial unless there was no opportunity or the person was unaware of the grounds, and a granted motion means the contents or derivative evidence are treated as having been obtained in violation of the chapter. The section routes the motion to the presiding justice of the superior court or a designated associate justice and states that no district court may hear or determine it in preliminary proceedings or otherwise; the attorney general may appeal an order allowing suppression within thirty days. This procedure belongs to Rhode Island's judicially authorized interception chapter. Official authority: R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-12. For the acquisition-law background, see the Rhode Island recording-law guide. |
Vermont | The Vermont Supreme Court states that government intrusion into a home is an Article 11 search even without affirmative privacy signals and restates Blow’s holding that police violated Article 11 by recording, without a warrant, a confidential informant’s conversation with the defendant in the defendant’s home. This is a criminal constitutional rule limited to government action and protected home or curtilage privacy; it establishes no private civil recording rule. Official authority: Vermont Constitution ch. I, art. 11; State v. Geraw/Blow line as restated in State v. Alexander, 2016 VT 19. For the acquisition-law background, see the Vermont recording-law guide. |
The table below covers 12 states in the Midwest.
| State or D.C. | Reviewed rule and limits |
|---|---|
Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/14-5, titled Evidence inadmissible, states an exclusion rule: evidence obtained in violation of Article 14 is not admissible in a civil or criminal trial, an administrative or legislative inquiry or proceeding, or a grand jury proceeding. Two exceptions are stated: the relevant contents of an alleged unlawfully intercepted, overheard, or recorded conversation may be admitted in a criminal trial or grand jury proceeding for a charge under this Article, and evidence may be admitted if all parties to the private conversation or private electronic communication consent to its admission. This is an evidence-exclusion rule; it does not itself state what recording conduct is lawful. Official authority: 720 ILCS 5/14-5. For the acquisition-law background, see the Illinois recording-law guide. |
Indiana | Section 35-33.5-5-1 states a notice-conditioned bar: the contents of an interception under this article, or evidence derived from the interception, may not be received into evidence or otherwise disclosed during a court proceeding unless each party, not less than fourteen days before the proceeding, has been furnished with a copy of the application, warrant, and any extension orders under which the interception was authorized. The court may waive the fourteen-day period if it finds that furnishing each party with the information at least fourteen days before the proceeding is not possible and that a party will not be prejudiced by the delay. The rule is written for an interception under this article, which is Indiana's warrant-authorized interception scheme, and it conditions admission on advance disclosure rather than stating a general exclusion for unlawfully obtained recordings. Official authority: Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-1. For the acquisition-law background, see the Indiana recording-law guide. |
Iowa | Section 808B.7, titled Contents of intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication as evidence, states an exclusion rule: the contents or any part of the contents of an intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication, and any evidence derived from it, shall not be received in evidence in a trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before a court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a state, or a political subdivision of a state, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter. The trigger is a disclosure that would violate chapter 808B, and section 808B.2(2)(c) of that chapter states that a person not acting under color of law does not act unlawfully by intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication to which that person is a party, or with a party's prior consent, unless the interception is for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act or any other injurious act. This is an evidence-exclusion rule; it does not itself state what recording conduct is lawful. Official authority: Iowa Code § 808B.7. For the acquisition-law background, see the Iowa recording-law guide. |
Kansas | Section 22-2516 governs court-ordered law-enforcement interception. Subsection (8) requires advance production of the interception order and application before covered contents or derivatives may be received; subsection (9) permits an aggrieved person to move to suppress intercepted wire or oral communications or derivatives for unlawful interception, facial insufficiency, or nonconformity with the authorization order. The listed forums are not expressly confined to criminal trials, but this procedure belongs to the court-authorized interception act. It does not establish a civil rule for an ordinary private participant recording. The suppression procedure applies to an aggrieved person in a covered proceeding involving an act-governed interception. Subsection (9) names wire or oral communications; the separate electronic-communication remedy limitation in subsection (12) must not be converted into a universal exclusion rule. Official authority: K.S.A. § 22-2516(7)-(9). For the acquisition-law background, see the Kansas recording-law guide. |
Michigan | No separately audited Michigan evidence rule is stated here. See the Michigan recording-law guide for acquisition law; the forum's evidence rules still control. |
Minnesota | Minn. Stat. § 626A.12 permits an aggrieved person to move to suppress the contents of an intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication, or derivative evidence, on the grounds that the communication was unlawfully intercepted, the authorization or approval order is facially insufficient, the interception did not conform to that order, there was no probable cause for the order, or the evidence was otherwise illegally obtained. A defendant must file the motion before trial or hearing after notice, subject to stated exceptions for late discovery of the interception, newly discovered evidence, or insufficient prior opportunity; an untimely motion waives the objection at trial. This procedure belongs to Minnesota's wiretap-act suppression mechanism for an aggrieved person and a covered interception; it does not by itself establish a rule for every private participant recording. Official authority: Minn. Stat. § 626A.12. For the acquisition-law background, see the Minnesota recording-law guide. |
Missouri | Section 542.418(1) bars contents of a wire communication and derivative evidence from civil or administrative proceedings, except civil actions brought under that section. Subsection (2) creates a civil cause of action and specified damages for interception, disclosure, or use violating sections 542.400 to 542.422. This section is not a motion-to-suppress provision. The exclusion is textually limited to civil and administrative proceedings and contains an exception for an action under section 542.418. The damages remedy requires a violation of the listed wiretap provisions. Section 542.418 does not establish criminal suppression. Subsection (3) makes good-faith reliance on a court order or section 542.408 a prima facie defense to a civil or criminal action under the chapter. Official authority: Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.418. For the acquisition-law background, see the Missouri recording-law guide. |
Nebraska | Section 86-2,115, titled Interception; use as evidence, states an exclusion rule: no part of the contents of any intercepted wire or oral communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a state, or a political subdivision, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of sections 86-271 to 86-2,115. The text of this evidence rule reaches wire or oral communications only, while the prohibition in section 86-290 also names electronic communications. This is an evidence-exclusion rule; it does not itself state what recording conduct is lawful. Official authority: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-2,115. For the acquisition-law background, see the Nebraska recording-law guide. |
North Dakota | Section 29-29.2-02(12) lets an aggrieved person in a trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, officer, agency, or other authority of this state or a political subdivision move to suppress the contents of an intercepted wire, electronic, or oral communication, or evidence derived from it, on the grounds that the communication was unlawfully intercepted, that the order of authorization or approval is insufficient on its face, or that the interception did not conform to that order; if the motion is granted, the contents or derivative evidence may not be received as evidence. Subsection (11) separately bars receiving or disclosing that material in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in a court unless each party was furnished with the court order and accompanying application at least ten days beforehand. Section 29-29.2-05 states that the chapter does not apply where the person intercepting was a party to the communication, or where one of the parties gave prior consent to the interception, and in either case the communication was not intercepted for the purpose of committing a crime or other unlawful harm, so a participant recording made without that purpose sits outside this suppression scheme. Official authority: N.D. Cent. Code § 29-29.2-02. For the acquisition-law background, see the North Dakota recording-law guide. |
Ohio | Section 2933.63 permits an aggrieved person in a trial, hearing, or proceeding other than a grand jury to move to suppress contents or derivative evidence from a communication intercepted pursuant to sections 2933.51 to 2933.66 for four listed grounds. If granted, the evidence is treated as unlawfully obtained and may not be received in any trial, hearing, or proceeding. The text is not limited by a civil/criminal label, but it is limited to an aggrieved person, the listed forums, and an interception governed by sections 2933.51 to 2933.66. No broader private-recording conclusion is established here. The procedure can operate in a covered criminal proceeding, except a grand jury, subject to the statutory interception scope. The state receives the appeal right described in subsection (C). Official authority: Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.63. For the acquisition-law background, see the Ohio recording-law guide. |
South Dakota | No separately audited South Dakota evidence rule is stated here. See the South Dakota recording-law guide for acquisition law; the forum's evidence rules still control. |
Wisconsin | Section 885.365 generally makes recorded telephone conversations inadmissible in Wisconsin civil actions unless a statutory condition applies. Section 968.30(9) separately allows an aggrieved person in a listed proceeding to move to suppress an intercepted wire, electronic, or oral communication, or derivative evidence, for unlawful interception, facial insufficiency, or nonconformity with the authorization order. For civil actions, apply section 885.365 and each of its exceptions. Section 968.30(9) is a separate chapter remedy for a covered interception and aggrieved person, not a substitute for section 885.365. Section 885.365 is textually a civil-action rule. Section 968.30(9) supplies suppression in covered proceedings for chapter-governed interceptions; it does not establish suppression of every private participant recording. Official authority: Wis. Stat. §§ 885.365, 968.30(9). For the acquisition-law background, see the Wisconsin recording-law guide. |
The table below covers 16 states in the South, plus the District of Columbia.
| State or D.C. | Reviewed rule and limits |
|---|---|
Alabama | No separately audited Alabama evidence rule is stated here. See the Alabama recording-law guide for acquisition law; the forum's evidence rules still control. |
Arkansas | No separately audited Arkansas evidence rule is stated here. See the Arkansas recording-law guide for acquisition law; the forum's evidence rules still control. |
Delaware | Section 2404 bars contents and derivative evidence from an intercepted wire or oral communication in listed state or local proceedings when disclosure would violate Chapter 24. Section 2402(c)(4) makes party or one-party-consent interception lawful unless undertaken for a criminal or tortious purpose. Section 2404 reaches the listed proceedings without a civil/criminal limitation, but only when disclosure violates the chapter. Apply the definitions and section 2402 exceptions first. The same exclusion text reaches covered criminal proceedings. A lawful participant or one-party-consent interception under section 2402(c)(4) is not excluded merely because every party lacked notice. Official authority: 11 Del. C. §§ 2402(c)(4), 2404. For the acquisition-law background, see the Delaware recording-law guide. |
District of Columbia | Section 23-551(a) imposes advance inventory/order/application disclosure before intercepted wire or oral communications or derivatives may be received in the listed proceedings. Subsection (b) permits an aggrieved person to move to suppress on five stated grounds and bars receipt if the motion is granted. The section lists proceedings rather than limiting itself to civil or criminal cases, but it applies to wire or oral interception governed by the subchapter. No general private-recording application is established by this source alone. The suppression procedure applies in a covered criminal proceeding when the movant is an aggrieved person and a statutory ground exists; it is not a rule for every participant recording. Official authority: D.C. Code § 23-551. For the acquisition-law background, see the District of Columbia recording-law guide. |
Florida | Section 934.06 states an exclusion rule: whenever a wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of its contents and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the state or a political subdivision, if disclosure would violate this chapter. The prohibition does not apply in a prosecution for criminal interception under the chapter. The text reaches wire or oral communications; it does not by its terms cover a purely electronic communication. This is an evidence-exclusion rule; it does not itself state what recording conduct is lawful. Official authority: Fla. Stat. § 934.06. For the acquisition-law background, see the Florida recording-law guide. |
Georgia | The Georgia Supreme Court held that a home-surveillance video and screenshots were properly authenticated. Section 24-9-901(a) requires evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims; autonomous-camera recordings also fall under § 24-9-923(c). An inaccurate time stamp affected weight rather than admissibility on the record before the Court. This is a criminal-case authentication holding, not a verified general exclusion rule for unlawfully made recordings; no § 16-11-67 exclusion claim is made. The general authentication standard is stated, but Mitchell is a criminal appeal; this source does not establish a civil exclusion remedy. Binding criminal-case authentication holding for autonomous surveillance video; it does not establish exclusion merely because a recording was unlawfully made. Official authority: Mitchell v. State, 320 Ga. 673, 911 S.E.2d 607 (2025), applying O.C.G.A. §§ 24-9-901(a) and 24-9-923(c). For the acquisition-law background, see the Georgia recording-law guide. Read the full opinion. |
Kentucky | Kentucky Rule of Evidence 901 requires evidence sufficient to support a finding that an item is what its proponent claims. Its examples include a knowledgeable witness, distinctive characteristics, voice identification, telephone circumstances, and proof of a producing process or system. This general authentication condition applies in civil and criminal proceedings; legality, suppression, and other objections remain separate. Official authority: Kentucky Rule of Evidence 901. For the acquisition-law background, see the Kentucky recording-law guide. |
Louisiana | La. R.S. § 15:1310 permits an aggrieved person in a trial, hearing, or proceeding before a court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other state or local authority to move to suppress the contents of an intercepted wire, electronic, or oral communication, or derivative evidence, on the grounds that the communication was unlawfully intercepted, the authorization or approval order is facially insufficient, or the interception did not conform to that order. If the motion is granted, the contents or derivative evidence are treated as obtained in violation of the chapter. The judge may allow the aggrieved person access to the relevant portion of the communication or derivative evidence when the interests of justice require it, and the state may appeal a granted motion within 30 days if the prosecutor certifies the appeal is not for delay. This procedure belongs to Louisiana's judicially authorized interception statute; it supplies suppression for an aggrieved person in a covered proceeding and interception, not a general rule for a private participant recording. Official authority: La. R.S. § 15:1310. For the acquisition-law background, see the Louisiana recording-law guide. |
Maryland | Section 10-405(a) states an exclusion rule: except as provided in subsection (b), whenever a wire, oral, or electronic communication has been intercepted, no part of its contents and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the state or a political subdivision, if disclosure would violate the subtitle. This reaches electronic communications as well as wire or oral, a broader scope than the federal 18 U.S.C. § 2515 wire-or-oral-only rule discussed above. Subsection (b) permits admitting a communication lawfully intercepted in another jurisdiction against a co-conspirator in a crime of violence when at least one party was outside Maryland during the communication and no Maryland law-enforcement officer conducted the interception. This is an evidence-exclusion rule; it does not itself state what recording conduct is lawful. Official authority: Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-405. For the acquisition-law background, see the Maryland recording-law guide. |
Mississippi | Mississippi Rule of Evidence 901 requires evidence sufficient to support a finding that an item is what its proponent claims. Rule 901(b)(5) expressly covers voice identification heard firsthand or through transmission or recording. This establishes authentication only. It supplies no civil exclusion rule, and section 41-29-531 is not used as a criminal suppression authority. Official authority: Mississippi Rule of Evidence 901. For the acquisition-law background, see the Mississippi recording-law guide. |
North Carolina | Section 15A-294(f) states that the contents of an intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived from it, may not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in any court of this State unless each party, not less than 20 working days before the proceeding, has been furnished with a copy of the order and accompanying application under which the interception was authorized. Subsection (g) lets any aggrieved person in a trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the State move to suppress those contents or derivative evidence on the grounds that the communication was unlawfully intercepted, that the order of authorization is insufficient on its face, or that the interception did not conform to that order, and provides that a granted motion means the material is treated as having been obtained in violation of the Article. Both rules belong to North Carolina's Electronic Surveillance Act procedure; neither states what recording conduct is lawful. Official authority: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-294. For the acquisition-law background, see the North Carolina recording-law guide. |
Oklahoma | Under 13 O.S. §§ 176.6 and 176.13, an aggrieved person may move before a covered trial, hearing, or proceeding to suppress intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communications and derivative evidence because the interception was unlawful, the authorization order was facially insufficient, or the interception did not conform to the order. Section 176.6 bars receipt when disclosure would violate the Security of Communications Act; § 176.4(5) separately permits private one-party interception unless undertaken to commit a criminal act. The text reaches any trial, hearing, or proceeding before the listed courts and governmental bodies, so it is not textually limited to criminal cases; application still depends on an interception governed by the Security of Communications Act and aggrieved-person status. The suppression procedure and § 176.6 exclusion apply in covered criminal proceedings, but a lawful private participant recording under § 176.4(5) is not excluded merely because other participants lacked notice. Official authority: 13 O.S. § 176.13. For the acquisition-law background, see the Oklahoma recording-law guide. |
South Carolina | Section 17-30-65(A) states an exclusion rule: whenever any wire, oral, or electronic communication has been intercepted, no part of its contents and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the State or a political subdivision, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter. The section states one exception: the prohibition does not apply in cases of prosecution for criminal interception in violation of the chapter. Subsection (B) removes the contents of communications intercepted under the chapter, and the applications and authorization orders, from the public-record definition in section 30-4-20(c). Section 17-30-110 adds a pretrial motion to suppress for an aggrieved person on the grounds of unlawful interception, a facially insufficient order, or non-conformity with the order, decided by a reviewing authority on an expedited basis, and its subsection (D) states that the chapter's remedies and sanctions are the only judicial remedies and sanctions for violations involving the interception of electronic communications. This is an evidence rule; it does not itself state what recording conduct is lawful. Official authority: S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-65. For the acquisition-law background, see the South Carolina recording-law guide. |
Tennessee | Tennessee Rule of Evidence 901(a) requires evidence sufficient to support a finding that an item is what its proponent claims. Rule 901(b)(5) permits voice identification from a recording, and Rule 901(b)(9) addresses a producing process or system. This establishes authentication only in civil and criminal proceedings; other objections remain separate, and this authority supplies no statutory suppression rule. Official authority: Tennessee Rule of Evidence 901. For the acquisition-law background, see the Tennessee recording-law guide. |
Texas | Article 38.23, titled Evidence Not To Be Used, states that no evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provision of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case, and that where the legal evidence raises an issue under the article, the jury shall be instructed to disregard evidence it believes, or has a reasonable doubt, was obtained in violation of the article. Subsection (b) states one exception: that the evidence was obtained by a law enforcement officer acting in objective good faith reliance upon a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate based on probable cause. The text reaches evidence obtained by an officer or other person, so a private party's violation is within its terms, and by its own words the rule applies against the accused on the trial of a criminal case. Official authority: Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.23. For the acquisition-law background, see the Texas recording-law guide. |
Virginia | Section 8.01-420.2 bars a mechanical recording of a telephone conversation from a civil proceeding unless all parties knew of the recording, demonstrated by a declaration at the beginning of the offered portion, or the offered portion contains admissions that would constitute criminal conduct forming the basis of the civil action, one party knew of the recording, and the case is not a listed marriage proceeding. Emergency-system and carrier-monitoring exceptions apply. This is a civil-proceeding telephone-recording rule with the two statutory routes and stated exceptions; it is not a general rule for every audio or video recording. No criminal-proceeding admissibility rule is established by § 8.01-420.2. Official authority: Va. Code § 8.01-420.2. For the acquisition-law background, see the Virginia recording-law guide. |
West Virginia | Section 62-1D-6, titled Admissibility of evidence, states that evidence obtained, directly or indirectly, by the interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication shall be received in evidence only in grand jury proceedings and criminal proceedings in magistrate court, circuit court, and any other court of competent jurisdiction, with a proviso that evidence obtained in violation of the provisions of this article shall not be admissible in any proceeding. The section therefore states both a limit on where intercepted material may be used and a bar on material obtained in violation of the article. It does not itself state what recording conduct violates the article; that turns on the rest of the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act. Official authority: W. Va. Code § 62-1D-6. For the acquisition-law background, see the West Virginia recording-law guide. |
The table below covers 13 states in the West.
| State or D.C. | Reviewed rule and limits |
|---|---|
Alaska | AS 12.37.120, titled Suppression of unlawful interceptions, states that a motion to suppress the contents of an intercepted private communication, or evidence derived from it, may be filed in a proceeding on the ground that the interception was unlawful, that the order of authorization under which the communication was intercepted is insufficient on its face, or that the interception was not made in substantial compliance with the order of authorization. Subsection (b) lets the court make available to the moving party, for inspection, the portions of the intercepted communication, applications, and orders that the court determines to be in the interest of justice. Subsection (c) states that suppression is the only judicial sanction available for a nonconstitutional violation of AS 12.37.010 through 12.37.130 involving an intercepted private communication. This is a suppression procedure attached to Alaska's judicially authorized interception statute; it does not itself state what recording conduct is lawful. Official authority: Alaska Stat. § 12.37.120. For the acquisition-law background, see the Alaska recording-law guide. |
Arizona | Section 13-3005(A)(1)-(2) defines the relevant criminal interception boundary: it prohibits intercepting a wire or electronic communication when the actor is not a party and lacks consent of a sender or receiver, and prohibits intercepting a conversation at which the actor is not present without a party’s consent. This row supplies recording-law navigation only and establishes no exclusion, suppression, damages, or authentication rule. No civil admissibility or damages rule is established by this source. The source defines criminal interception conduct but does not state an evidence remedy. Do not infer suppression from a violation. Official authority: A.R.S. § 13-3005(A)(1)-(2). For the acquisition-law background, see the Arizona recording-law guide. |
California | Section632(d) states an exclusion rule for evidence obtained through recording a confidential communication in violation of the section, with its proof-of-violation exception. Guzman holds that Proposition8 abrogated that remedy insofar as it excludes relevant evidence in criminal proceedings; the decision does not legalize recording or abolish other evidence restrictions. Guzman expressly leaves noncriminal application of632(d) unaffected; apply the statute and its exceptions separately. No exclusion under632(d) alone for relevant evidence under Guzman. Privilege, hearsay, EvidenceCode352 and other preserved constitutional/statutory restrictions remain separate. Official authority: Cal. Penal Code § 632; Official authority: California Constitution, article I, § 28; Official authority: People v. Guzman, S242244 (2019). For the acquisition-law background, see the California recording-law guide. Read the full opinion. |
Colorado | For interceptions under Colorado’s court-authorization statute, subsection (9) requires advance disclosure of the order and application, subsection (10) permits an aggrieved person to seek suppression for unlawful interception, facial insufficiency, or nonconformity with the order, and subsection (11) permits a state appeal. This does not establish a general exclusion rule for private recordings or a separate civil rule. Apply it only to covered interceptions and proceedings. Official authority: C.R.S. § 16-15-102(9)-(11). For the acquisition-law background, see the Colorado recording-law guide. |
Hawaii | Section 803-46(h) states that the contents of an intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived from it, shall not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in any court of this State unless each party, not less than thirty days before the proceeding, has been furnished with copies of the documents required to be disclosed and the contents sought to be admitted in evidence; the court may shorten or waive that thirty-day period if it finds the party will not be prejudiced by the delay. Subsection (i)(1) lets any aggrieved person in a trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the State move to suppress those contents or derivative evidence on the grounds that the communication was unlawfully intercepted, that the order of authorization or approval is insufficient on its face, or that the interception did not conform to that order, and provides that a granted motion means the material is treated as having been obtained in violation of the part. Both rules sit inside Hawaii's judicially authorized interception procedure; neither states what recording conduct is lawful. Official authority: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-46. For the acquisition-law background, see the Hawaii recording-law guide. |
Idaho | Section 18-6705, titled Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire, electronic or oral communications, states an exclusion rule: whenever any wire, electronic, or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of its contents and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the state or a political subdivision, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter. The bar is conditional on the disclosure violating chapter 67 of title 18, and the section states no exception of its own. This is an evidence-exclusion rule; it does not itself state what recording conduct is lawful. Official authority: Idaho Code § 18-6705. For the acquisition-law background, see the Idaho recording-law guide. |
Montana | Section 46-5-607, titled Admissibility of proof -- violations, states an exclusion rule: except as proof of a violation of this part, evidence obtained in violation of this part is not admissible in a civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding and may not be used in an affidavit in an effort to obtain a search warrant or court order. The part it enforces is title 46, chapter 5, part 6, whose section 46-5-602 requires a governmental entity to use a search warrant or investigative subpoena to require disclosure of an electronic communication held by an electronic communication service, other than a subscriber record. Section 46-5-601 defines electronic communication so as to exclude an oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, so this rule does not by its terms reach a recorded in-person conversation. Montana's separate privacy-in-communications offense at section 45-8-213 states no evidence rule of its own. Official authority: Mont. Code Ann. § 46-5-607. For the acquisition-law background, see the Montana recording-law guide. |
Nevada | NRS 179.505, titled Motion to suppress, lets any aggrieved person in a trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, or other authority of the State or a political subdivision move to suppress the contents of an intercepted wire, electronic, or oral communication, or evidence derived from it, on the grounds that the communication was unlawfully intercepted, that the order of authorization is insufficient on its face, that the interception did not conform to the order of authorization, or that the period of the order and any extension had expired. The motion must be made before the proceeding unless there was no opportunity or the person was unaware of the grounds; if it is granted, the material is treated as having been obtained in violation of NRS 179.410 to 179.515. NRS 179.500 separately bars receiving or disclosing intercepted contents or derivative evidence in any court of this state unless each party received the court order, the application, and a transcript at least 10 days beforehand, a period the judge may waive on the findings the section states. NRS 48.077 runs the other direction, making the contents of a communication lawfully intercepted under the laws of the United States or of another jurisdiction, and evidence derived from it, admissible in an action or proceeding in a court or before an administrative body of this State, where the interception took place within that jurisdiction and except as that section itself limits. These rules belong to Nevada's judicially authorized interception statute and its evidence code, not to every private participant recording. Official authority: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.505. For the acquisition-law background, see the Nevada recording-law guide. |
New Mexico | In State v. Jesenya O., the New Mexico Supreme Court applied the traditional Rule 11-901 authentication standard rather than a heightened test. The proponent must present evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what it claims; authentication is a low threshold, and ultimate authorship remains for the factfinder. The case arose in a delinquency proceeding and establishes no recording-law suppression rule. Official authority: State v. Jesenya O., 2022-NMSC-014. For the acquisition-law background, see the New Mexico recording-law guide. Read the full opinion. |
Oregon | ORS 41.910, titled Certain intercepted communications inadmissible, states that evidence of the contents of a wire or oral communication intercepted in violation of ORS 165.540 shall not be admissible in any court of this state, with two stated exceptions: as evidence of unlawful interception, and where the evidence was created by a video camera worn on a law enforcement officer's person and the officer substantially complied with, or attempted in good faith to comply with, ORS 165.540(5)(d)(B). Subsection (2) makes evidence of a communication intercepted under ORS 165.540(2)(a) inadmissible in any court of this state unless the communication was intercepted by a public official in charge of and at a jail, police premises, sheriff's office, Department of Corrections institution, or other penal or correctional institution, and the participant against whom the evidence is offered had actual notice that the communication was being monitored or recorded. The rule reaches wire or oral communications and is keyed to ORS 165.540; it does not itself state what recording conduct is lawful. Official authority: Or. Rev. Stat. § 41.910. For the acquisition-law background, see the Oregon recording-law guide. |
Utah | Section 77-23a-10(11)(a) lets any aggrieved person in a trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States, the state, or a political subdivision move to suppress the contents of an intercepted wire, electronic, or oral communication, or evidence derived from any of them, on the grounds that the communication was unlawfully intercepted, that the order of authorization or approval is insufficient on its face, or that the interception did not conform to that order. The motion must be made before the proceeding unless there was no opportunity or the person was unaware of the grounds, and a granted motion means the material is treated as having been obtained in violation of the chapter. Subsection (10)(a) separately bars receiving or disclosing that material in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in a federal or state court unless each party was furnished with the court order and accompanying application at least 10 days beforehand, a period the judge may waive on the findings the subsection lists. Both rules sit inside Utah's judicially authorized interception procedure. Official authority: Utah Code § 77-23a-10. For the acquisition-law background, see the Utah recording-law guide. |
Washington | RCW 9.73.050 states an exclusion rule: information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030, or pursuant to an authorization order under RCW 9.73.040, is inadmissible in any civil or criminal case in all state courts of general or limited jurisdiction. Two exceptions are stated: the person whose rights were violated may permit its use in a damages action under RCW 9.73.030 through 9.73.080, and it may be used in a criminal prosecution where the charged crime would jeopardize national security. This is one of the broadest state exclusion rules in this directory, since it names both civil and criminal cases expressly. This is an evidence-exclusion rule; it does not itself state what recording conduct is lawful. Official authority: RCW 9.73.050. For the acquisition-law background, see the Washington recording-law guide. |
Wyoming | Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-710 is a civil damages remedy, not a suppression section. Subject to § 7-3-702(b)(ii), a person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of the act may recover actual damages of at least $1,000 for each day of violation, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs. Section 7-3-702(b)(iv) permits participant or one-party-consent interception unless done to commit a criminal or tortious act. Section 7-3-710 supplies the stated private damages remedy only for interception, disclosure, or use in violation of the act; lawful one-party recordings under § 7-3-702(b)(iv) do not trigger it. Good-faith reliance on a court order is a complete defense under § 7-3-710(b). Section 7-3-710 does not establish suppression or inadmissibility in a criminal case. Subsection (b) supplies a good-faith-court-order defense to a civil or criminal action under the act. Official authority: Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-710. For the acquisition-law background, see the Wyoming recording-law guide. |
Legal information only: Admissibility depends on the forum, case type, purpose, objections, and facts. This guide is not legal advice and does not predict how a court will rule.
Statutes cited reflect their reviewed versions as of September 11, 2026.
Last updated: September 11, 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is a legal recording automatically admissible?
No. Federal Rules of Evidence 401-403, 801-804, and 901 illustrate the separate relevance, hearsay, and authentication questions; state rules may differ.
Does metadata prove a recording is authentic?
No. Federal Rule of Evidence 901 requires evidence sufficient to support a finding that the recording is what the proponent claims; metadata may be part of that showing but does not decide legality or admissibility.
Can an edited clip be used?
Possibly. Federal Rule of Evidence 106 addresses context required by fairness, while Rules 1002-1003 address originals and accurate duplicates; preserve the unedited source as a practical step.
Does an illegal recording always get suppressed?
No. A remedy must come from applicable authority. For example, 18 U.S.C. § 2515 has its own wire-or-oral and unlawful-disclosure conditions, while Wyoming § 7-3-710 supplies damages rather than suppression.
Does a recording need a chain of custody to be admitted?
Federal Rule of Evidence 901 never uses that phrase. Rule 901(a) asks only for evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is, and Rule 901(b) is a list of examples rather than requirements, so a documented handling history is one route under Rule 901(b)(1), (b)(4) or (b)(9). It also matters under Rule 1003, where a gap can support a genuine question about the original's authenticity. State courts apply their own version of Rule 901.
Who has to testify to get a recording into evidence?
It depends on what is disputed. Rule 901(b)(1) accepts testimony that the item is what it is claimed to be, Rule 901(b)(5) accepts an opinion identifying a voice, Rule 901(b)(6) addresses the circumstances of a telephone call, and Rule 901(b)(9) accepts evidence describing a process or system and showing that it produces an accurate result.
Is a transcript of the recording itself evidence?
Not necessarily. Rule 1002 generally requires the original recording to prove its content. Federal Rule of Evidence 107, added in the 2024 amendments, provides that an illustrative aid is not evidence and must not go to the jury during deliberations unless all parties consent or the court orders otherwise for good cause, while Rule 1006 covers summaries of voluminous material admitted as evidence.
Do the Federal Rules of Evidence apply in family court?
No. Rule 1101(a) and (b) list the federal courts and the case types those rules govern, so a state family court applies its own state evidence law. Some state statutes address family matters expressly: Virginia § 8.01-420.2 closes one of its two routes for a recorded telephone call when the proceeding is one for divorce, separate maintenance or annulment of a marriage.
Can I get police body camera footage for my case?
That is a records and discovery question rather than an admissibility question, and it varies by state. South Carolina § 23-1-240(G) makes body-worn camera data not a public record under the Freedom of Information Act while entitling the person recorded, a criminal defendant, and a civil litigant with a pending action to request and receive it under the rules of procedure or a court order. California Government Code § 7923.625 instead sets the grounds and periods for withholding critical-incident recordings.
Does Section 2515 apply to a video with no sound?
By its text it does not reach that question. 18 U.S.C. § 2515 is keyed to a wire or oral communication that has been intercepted, and § 2510(1) and § 2510(2) define both terms around sound. Whether another federal or state law reaches silent images is a separate question, and state video-surveillance statutes vary.
Which state's law applies?
This guide does not resolve choice of law. Identify the forum and proceeding first; Federal Rules of Evidence 101 and 1101 describe the federal rules' own court-and-proceeding scope.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
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.
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: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
§ 2515Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communicationsIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 622 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Calandra (Supreme Court of the United States 1974, 414 U.S. 338)“…ilverthorne holding was clearly evidenced in enactment of 18 U. S. C. § 2515 , providing that "[w]henever any wire o…”
- United States v. Giordano (Supreme Court of the United States 1974, 416 U.S. 505)“…r and any “evidence derived therefrom” must be suppressed. 18 U. S. C. §§ 2515 and 2518 (10) (a). The authorization…”
- Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41)“…f that information would be in violation of this chapter." 18 U. S. C. § 2515 . [2] The question presented is whethe…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Supreme Court Rejects "Clean-Hands" Wiretap Loophole, Sends Influencer's Case Back to Sixth Circuit, Supreme Court Tosses Conviction Over a Secretly Recorded FaceTime Call (2026), Montana Recording Laws (2026): Announcement Exception and Penalties
§ 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: Surveillance Camera Laws by State (2026 Guide), Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
§ 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: Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know, Alaska Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026)
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 13 (Criminal Code), Chapter 30 (EAVESDROPPING AND COMMUNICATIONS)
§ 13-3005Interception of wire, electronic and oral communications; installation of pen register or trap and trace device; classification; exceptionsIn forcecited in 23 of our articles
A. Except as provided in this section and section 13-3012, a person is guilty of a class 5 felony who either: 1. Intentionally intercepts a wire or electronic communication to which he is not a party, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of either a sender or receiver thereof. 2. Intentionally intercepts a conversation or discussion at which he is not present, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of a party to such conversation or discussion. 3. Intentionally intercepts the deliberations of a jury or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do. B. Except as provided in sections 13-3012 and 13-3017, a person who intentionally and without lawful authority installs or uses a pen register or trap and trace device on the telephone lines or communications facilities of another person which are utilized for wire or electronic communication is guilty of a class 6 felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at azleg.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Morrison (2002) held that 13-3005 criminalizes unlawful interception but provides no exclusionary remedy, so a recording made in violation of it is not automatically inadmissible. State v. Hauss (1984) held the section inapplicable to a police station interview room talk where no reasonable expectation of privacy existed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Morrison (Court of Appeals of Arizona 2002, 203 Ariz. 489)“…ause it was made without his or her consent in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3005 and 18 U.S.C. § 2511 and was, therefo…”
- State v. Hauss (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1984, 142 Ariz. 159)✓Police secretly recorded an arrested suspect's talk with his girlfriend in a station interview room, after telling her the room was being monitored; the court held there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in that setting, so section 13-3005 did not apply.
- State v. Allgood (Court of Appeals of Arizona 1992, 171 Ariz. 522)“…communication.” (Emphasis added.) See also A.R.S. § 13-3005. (penalizing as a class 5 felony interc…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Arizona Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, One-Party Consent States: Complete 2026 Guide, Arizona Audio Recording Laws: Complete Guide to Consent Rules
California Penal Code
§ 632In forcecited in 55 of our articles
(a) A person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, uses an electronic amplifying or recording device to eavesdrop upon or record the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) per violation, or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. If the person has previously been convicted of a violation of this section or Section 631, 632.5, 632.6, 632.7, or 636, the person shall be punished by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 267 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kimmel v. Goland (1990) held the section 47(2) litigation privilege does not bar a damages claim under Section 632 for recording confidential conversations without consent. Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc. (2003) held a Section 632 violation is complete the moment the recording is made, whether or not it is disclosed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Rubin v. Green (California Supreme Court 1993, 4 Cal. 4th 1187)“…f telephone conversations with defendants, an offense under Penal Code section 632. We noted that defendants alleged that…”
- Kimmel v. Goland (California Supreme Court 1990, 51 Cal. 3d 202)✓Mobilehome owners secretly taped phone calls with park management in anticipation of suing; the court held the section 47(2) litigation privilege did not bar the cross-complaint for damages under Penal Code section 632, since the injury came from recording, not publication.
- Shulman v. Group W Productions, Inc. (California Supreme Court 1998, 74 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843)✓A TV producer put a wireless microphone on the flight nurse treating a crash victim. No section 632 claim was before the court, but it called section 632 and the intrusion tort laws of general applicability and said the press may not eavesdrop in violation of section 632.
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), Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026), Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026)
Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 16: Criminal Proceedings
§ 16-15-102Ex parte order authorizing the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communicationsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) (a) An ex parte order authorizing or approving the interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication may be issued by any judge of competent jurisdiction of the state of Colorado upon application of the attorney general or a district attorney, or his or her designee if the attorney general or district attorney is absent from his or her jurisdiction, showing by affidavit that there is probable cause to believe that evidence will be obtained of the commission of any one of the crimes enumerated in this subsection (1) or that one of said enumerated crimes will be committed: (I) Murder in the first or second degree as defined in sections 18-3-102 and 18-3-103, C.R.S.; (II) Kidnapping in the first or second degree as defined in sections 18-3-301 and 18-3-302, C.R.S.; (III) Gambling, meaning professional gambling, as defined in section 18-10-102 (8), C.R.S., and subject to prosecution under section 18-10-103 (2), C.R.S.; (IV) Robbery as defined in section 18-4-301, C.R.S., aggravated robbery as defined in section 18-4-302, C.R.S., or burglary in the first or second degree as defined in sections 18-4-202 and 18-4-203, C.R.S.; (V) Bribery as defined in section 18-8-302,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Delaware Code, Title 11 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Chapter 024 (WIRETAPPING, ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE AND INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS)
§ 2402Interception of communications generally; divulging contents of communications, violations of chapter.In forcecited in 20 of our articles
(a) Prohibited acts. — Except as specifically provided in this chapter or elsewhere in this Code no person shall: (1) Intentionally intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral or electronic communication; (2) Intentionally disclose or endeavor to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication in violation of this chapter; or (3) Intentionally use or endeavor to use the contents of any wire, oral or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication in violation of this chapter. (b) Penalties for violation of subsection (a) of this section. — Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be guilty of a class E felony and be fined not more than $10,000. (c) Lawful acts.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at delcode.delaware.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Dayton v. Collison (2020) applied 11 Del. C. 2402(a)(1), finding neighbors intercepted a homeowner's backyard conversations with a motion-activated video camera, an intrusion upon seclusion. State v. Hunt (2023) said in the alternative that police access to a consenting owner's phone, if an interception, was lawful under 2402(c)(3).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Dayton v. Collison (Superior Court of Delaware 2020)✓Neighbors aimed a motion-activated audio and video camera at a man's backyard and recorded his conversations there; after trial the court found they intentionally intercepted oral communications in violation of section 2402(a), and that this was an intrusion on his seclusion.
- Everett v. State (Supreme Court of Delaware 2018, 186 A.3d 1224)“…d or a location was bugged, and a host of other details.”); 11 Del. C. § 2402(c)(3) (authorizing government wiretappi…”
- State v. Hunt (Superior Court of Delaware 2023)✓Police read and answered texts on a cooperating witness's phone with his permission; rejecting a postconviction claim, the court found no interception occurred and reasoned in the alternative that any interception in the drug investigation was lawful under section 2402(c)(3).
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Delaware Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)
§ 2404Admissibility of evidence.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of the communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee or other authority of this State or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at delcode.delaware.gov
Code of the District of Columbia, Title 23: Criminal Procedure. - Chapter 5: Warrants and Arrests. - Subchapter III: Wire Interception and Interception of Oral Communications.
§ 23-551Procedure for disclosure and suppression of intercepted wire or oral communications.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) The contents of any intercepted wire or oral communication or evidence derived therefrom shall not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States or the District of Columbia unless not less than ten days before the trial, hearing, or proceeding — (1) the inventory as provided in section 23-550 has been served; and (2) the parties to the action have been served with a copy of the order and accompanying application under which the interception was authorized or approved. This ten-day period may be waived by court order where a court finds that it was not possible to furnish the party with the above information ten days before the trial hearing, or proceeding and that the party will not be prejudiced by the delay in receiving the information.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at github.com
Official Code of Georgia Annotated
§ 24-9-901Requirement of authentication or identification.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility shall be satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. (b) By way of illustration only, and not by way of limitation, the following…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-05-06 · Read the full text in our law library
§ 24-9-923Authentication of photographs, motion pictures, video recordings, and audio recordings when witness unavailable.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) As used in this Code section, the term "unavailability of a witness" includes situations in which the authenticating witness: (1) Is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the authentication; (2) Persists in refusing to…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-05-06 · Read the full text in our law library
Kansas Statutes Annotated, Chapter 22: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
§ 22-2516Same; application for order, form and contents; issuance of order; contents; duration; extension; recordation of intercepted communications; custody of application and order, disclosure; inventory, notice to certain persons; evidentiary status of intercepted communications; motion to suppress, appeal.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Each application for an order authorizing the interception of a wire, oral or electronic communication shall be made in writing, upon oath or affirmation, to a judge of competent jurisdiction, and shall state the applicant's authority to make such application. Each application shall include the following information: (a) The identity of the prosecuting attorney making the application, and the identity of the investigative or law enforcement officer requesting such application to be made; (b) a full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify such applicant's belief that an order should be issued, including (i) details as to the particular offense that has been, is being or is about to be committed, (ii) except as provided in subsection (10), a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the place where the communication is to be intercepted, (iii) a particular description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted, and (iv) the identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted; (c) a full and complete statement as to…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ksrevisor.gov
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 272
§ 99Interception of wire and oral communicationsIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
Section 99. Interception of wire and oral communications.— A. Preamble. The general court finds that organized crime exists within the commonwealth and that the increasing activities of organized crime constitute a grave danger to the public welfare and safety. Organized crime, as it exists in the commonwealth today, consists of a continuing conspiracy among highly organized and disciplined groups to engage in supplying illegal goods and services. In supplying these goods and services organized crime commits unlawful acts and employs brutal and violent tactics. Organized crime is infiltrating legitimate business activities and depriving honest businessmen of the right to make a living. The general court further finds that because organized crime carries on its activities through layers of insulation and behind a wall of secrecy, government has been unsuccessful in curtailing and eliminating it. Normal investigative procedures are not effective in the investigation of illegal acts committed by organized crime.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at malegislature.gov
Cited in 271 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Blood (1987) read Section 99 as generally proscribing secret recording of oral communications without all parties' consent, and suppressed under art. 14 a warrantless police recording made with one party's consent. Commonwealth v. Vitello (1975) held Section 99 substantially complies with federal Title III.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Vitello (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1975, 367 Mass. 224)✓In a gaming prosecution built on wiretapped phone calls, the SJC gave chapter 272 section 99 its first full review and held the state wiretap statute substantially complies with federal Title III and that the warrants issued under it met both standards.
- Commonwealth v. Blood (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1987, 400 Mass. 61)✓Police wired an informant who recorded conversations in private homes about a planned break-in; the SJC held the recordings fell within section 99's one-party-consent exception but that article 14 nonetheless required a warrant, and reversed the convictions.
- Commonwealth v. D'Amour (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 1999, 428 Mass. 725)✓The SJC upheld a section 99 wiretap of a widow suspected of arranging her husband's murder for insurance money, holding the district attorney's written designation of an assistant satisfied Vitello and that probable cause supported the organized crime connection.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVII (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE), Chapter 542
§ 542.418Use of contents of wiretap in civil action, limitations on — illegal wiretap, cause of action, damages, attorney fees and costs — good faith reliance on court order a prima facie defense.In forcecited in 12 of our articles
1. The contents of any wire communication or evidence derived therefrom shall not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any civil or administrative proceeding, except in civil actions brought pursuant to this section. 2. Any person whose wire communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of sections 542.400 to 542.422 shall: (1) Have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use such communications; and (2) Be entitled to recover from any such person: (a) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation or ten thousand dollars whichever is greater; (b) Punitive damages on a showing of a willful or intentional violation of sections 542.400 to 542.422; and (c) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. 3. A good faith reliance on a court order or on the provisions of section 542.408 shall constitute a prima facie defense to any civil or criminal action brought under sections 542.400 to 542.422.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Phillips v. American Motorist Insurance Co. (Missouri Court of Appeals 1999, 996 S.W.2d 584)“…int on appeal is that the trial court erred in holding that § 542.418, RSMo 1994, 1 of the Missouri Wi…”
- Ward (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2026)“…e Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 is stated as a criminal statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.418 creates a private right of action in a…”
- Fotoohighiam v. The City of Columbia Missouri (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2025)“…red. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.418.2. However, it is not unlawful under th…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Missouri Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP, Missouri Smart Glasses Recording Laws
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE LVIII PUBLIC JUSTICE, CHAPTER 570-A WIRETAPPING AND EAVESDROPPING
§ 570-A:2Interception and Disclosure of Telecommunication or Oral Communications Prohibited.In force
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person: (a) Wilfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any telecommunication or oral communication; (b) Wilfully 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 telecommunication, or (2) Such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication, or (3) Such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on premises of any business or other commercial establishment, or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment; or (c) Wilfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 35 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):New Hampshire courts read the felony offense in RSA 570-A:2, I as requiring more than intent to record. Fischer v. Hooper (1999) held wilfully means intentional or reckless disregard for the lawfulness of the conduct, so a good faith belief is a defense. State of New Hampshire v. Adam Mueller (2014) reversed on that mens rea.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Kilgus (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1986, 128 N.H. 577)✓A murder-for-hire middleman agreed to wear a hidden recorder and got the defendant to confirm paying $1,000 to have a man killed; the court held the taping was lawful under RSA 570-A:2, II(d) because one party consented and homicide is an enumerated offense.
- Fischer v. Hooper (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1999, 143 N.H. 585)✓A father secretly taped his ex-wife's calls with their daughter though a guardian ad litem had said both parents must agree; the court held wilfully in RSA 570-A:2, I requires intentional or reckless disregard for the lawfulness of the conduct, and reversed for a new trial.
- State of New Hampshire v. Adam Mueller (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2014, 166 N.H. 65)✓A police-accountability activist recorded three phone calls with a police captain and two school officials without telling them; the court held that instructing the jury on purposely rather than the statute's wilfully was plain error and reversed his wiretapping convictions.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 570-A:6Prohibition of Use as Evidence of Intercepted Telecommunications or Oral Communications.In forcecited in 19 of our articles
Whenever any telecommunication or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 16 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. McLeod (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2013, 165 N.H. 42)“…dio-recording of a one-party telephonic interception, see RSA 570-A:6 (2001). We reverse in part, vacate in p…”
- State v. MacMillan (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2005, 152 N.H. 67)“…sion of Detective Warchol’s testimony is not required under RSA 570-A:6 (2001) because the detective’s knowledg…”
- State v. Telles (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1995, 139 N.H. 344)“…ions that she had overheard. The defendant objected, citing RSA 570-A:6, which prohibits the admission of evide…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Hampshire Audio Recording Laws, New Hampshire Dashcam Laws, New Hampshire Phone Call Recording Laws
New York Civil Practice Law and Rules
§ 4506Eavesdropping evidence; admissibility; motion to suppress in certain casesIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
Eavesdropping evidence; admissibility; motion to suppress in certain cases. 1. The contents of any overheard or recorded communication, conversation or discussion, or evidence derived therefrom, which has been obtained by conduct constituting the crime of eavesdropping, as defined by section 250.05 of the penal law, may not be received in evidence in any trial, hearing or proceeding before any court or grand jury, or before any legislative committee, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof; provided, however, that such communication, conversation, discussion or evidence, shall be admissible in any civil or criminal trial, hearing or proceeding against a person who has, or is alleged to have, committed such crime of eavesdropping. 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislation.nysenate.gov
Ohio Revised Code
§ 2933.63Motion to suppress evidence from intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communicationIn force
(A) Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing, or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of this state or of a political subdivision of this state, other than a grand jury, may request the involved court, department, officer, agency,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at codes.ohio.gov
Cited in 16 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Davies (Ohio Court of Appeals 2001, 145 Ohio App. 3d 630)“…rial court did not expressly address the issue of standing. R.C. 2933.63(A) allows any “aggrieved person” to req…”
- State v. Robb (Ohio Supreme Court 2000, 88 Ohio St. 3d 59)“…not suppressing evidence from the tunnel tapes under former R.C. 2933.63. The court of appeals *66 agreed that…”
- State v. Bidinost (Ohio Supreme Court 1994, 71 Ohio St. 3d 449)“…ted by the terms of R.C. 2933.52(A). Therefore, pursuant to R.C. 2933.63, the trial court was required to suppre…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Oklahoma Statutes, Title 13: COMMON CARRIERS
§ 176.13Suppression of intercepted communication or evidenceIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
derived therefrom. A. Any aggrieved person in any trial, hearing or proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body or other authority may move to suppress the contents of any intercepted wire, oral or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, on the grounds that: 1. The communication was unlawfully intercepted; 2. The order of authorization under which it was intercepted is insufficient on its face; or 3. The interception was not made in conformity with the order of authorization. B. Said motion shall be made before the trial, hearing or proceeding unless there was no opportunity to make the motion or the aggrieved person was not aware of the grounds of the motion. If the motion is granted, the contents of the intercepted wire, oral or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, shall be treated as having been obtained in violation of the Security of Communications Act.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oklegislature.gov
Code of Virginia, Title 8.01: Civil Remedies and Procedure
§ 8.01-420.2Limitation on use of recorded conversations as evidenceIn forcecited in 16 of our articles
No mechanical recording, electronic or otherwise, of a telephone conversation shall be admitted into evidence in any civil proceeding unless (i) all parties to the conversation were aware the conversation was being recorded or (ii) the portion of the recording to be admitted contains admissions that, if true, would constitute criminal conduct which is the basis for the civil action, and one of the parties was aware of the recording and the proceeding is not one for divorce, separate maintenance or annulment of a marriage. The parties' knowledge of the recording pursuant to clause (i) shall be demonstrated by a declaration at the beginning of the recorded portion of the conversation to be admitted into evidence that the conversation is being recorded. This section shall not apply to emergency reporting systems operated by police and fire departments and by emergency medical services agencies, nor to any communications common carrier utilizing service observing or random monitoring pursuant to § 19.2-62.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at law.lis.virginia.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1991
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Leitman v. McAusland (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 1991, 934 F.2d 46)“…transcript could not be admitted into evidence pursuant to Va.Code § 8.01-420.2. 5 A state evidentiary rule, such as…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Virginia Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Virginia Dashcam Laws: Installation, Audio, and Evidence Rules, Virginia Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance and Privacy Rights
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 885: Witnesses And Oral Testimony
§ 885.365Recorded telephone conversation.In force
(1) Evidence obtained as the result of the use of voice recording equipment for recording of telephone conversations, by way of interception of a communication or in any other manner, shall be totally inadmissible in the courts of this state in civil actions, except as provided in ss. 968.28 to 968.37. (2) Subsection (1) shall not apply where: (a) Such recording is made in a manner other than by interception and the person whose conversation is being recorded is informed at that time that the conversation is being recorded and that any evidence thereby obtained may be used in a court of law; or such recording is made through a recorder connector provided by the telecommunications utility as defined in s. 196.01 (10) or a telecommunications carrier as defined in s. 196.01 (8m) in accordance with its tariffs and which automatically produces a distinctive recorder tone that is repeated at intervals of approximately 15 seconds; (b) The recording is made by a telecommunications utility as defined in s. 196.01 (10), a telecommunications carrier as defined in s.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · 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: 2002
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bauers v. Board of Regents (Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 2002, 33 F. App'x 812)“…ngs were inadmissable under Wisconsin law. She argues that Wis. Stat. § 885.365 (1), which prohibits the introduction o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 968: Commencement Of Criminal Proceedings
§ 968.30Procedure for interception of wire, electronic or oral communications.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
(1) Each application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication shall be made in writing upon oath or affirmation to the court and shall state the applicant’s authority to make the application and may be upon personal knowledge or information and belief. Each application shall include the following information: (a) The identity of the investigative or law enforcement officer making the application, and the officers authorizing the application. (b) A full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant, to justify the applicant’s belief that an order should be issued, including: 1. Details of the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed; 2. A particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the place where the communication is to be intercepted; 3. A particular description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted; and 4. The identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Popenhagen (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2008, 309 Wis. 2d 601)“…tly would have prevailed on his motion to suppress because Wis. Stat. § 968.30 (9)(a) provides that "[a]ny aggrieved p…”
- State Ex Rel. Two Unnamed v. Peterson (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2015, 363 Wis. 2d 1)“…d 30 days in duration without specific judicial extension. Wis. Stat. § 968.30 (5). These statutory limitations and…”
- State v. House (Wisconsin Supreme Court 2007, 302 Wis. 2d 1)“…ul because they failed to conform to the requirement under Wis. Stat. §§ 968.30 and 968.28 that applications for exten…”
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 AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
Wyoming Statutes, Title 7 - Criminal Procedure - Chapter 3: Fugitives and Prevention of Crime - Article 7: Communication Interception
§ 7-3-710Recovery of civil damages for violations; good faith defense.In forcecited in 10 of our articles
(a) Subject to W.S. 7-3-702(b)(ii), any person whose wire, oral or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this act may recover damages against any person who intercepts, discloses, uses or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use the communications as follows: (i) Actual damages but not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) a day for each day of violation; (ii) Punitive damages; and (iii) Reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (b) A good faith reliance on a court order constitutes a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this act.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at wyoleg.gov
Also relied on in: Wyoming Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Guide, Wyoming Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Rights and Rules, Wyoming Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules and Consent Guide
California Government Code
§ 7923.625In force
Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, commencing July 1, 2019, a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident, as defined in subdivision (e), may be withheld only as follows: (a) (1) During an active criminal or administrative investigation, disclosure of a recording related to a critical incident may be delayed for no longer than 45 calendar days after the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, if, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, such as by endangering the safety of a witness or a confidential source. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this section, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency’s determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation and the estimated date for disclosure.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Farber CA6 (California Court of Appeal 2024)“…of certificate of probable cause].) 3 Government Code section 7923.625 is part of the California Public Record…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 52 (Civil Actions), Chapter 899
§ 52-184aEvidence obtained illegally by electronic device inadmissible.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
No evidence obtained illegally by the use of any electronic device is admissible in any court of this state.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2000
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Diaz (Connecticut Superior Court 1983, 39 Conn. Super. Ct. 392)“…age of exclusion similar, for example, to that set forth in General Statutes 52-184a which provides that "[n]o evidence obt…”
- Rivera v. Rivera (Connecticut Appellate Court 1988, 15 Conn. App. 529)“…recorded conversations into evidence for any purpose. 1 General Statutes § 52-184a provides that “[n]o evidence obtained…”
- Richards v. O'neil, No. Cv99-0059813s (Apr. 24, 2000) (Connecticut Superior Court 2000, 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 4917)“…of a conversation. (b) Eavesdropping is a class D felony." General Statutes § 52-184a provides that "[n]o evidence obtained…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Florida Statutes
§ 934.06Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire or oral communications; exception.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter. The prohibition of use as evidence provided in this section does not apply in cases of prosecution for criminal interception in violation of the provisions of this chapter.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 44 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Richard R. Mcdade v. State of Florida (Supreme Court of Florida 2014, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 752)“…parties to the communication was prohibited; and that Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1975), expressly prohibits the u…”
- State v. News-Press Pub. Co. (District Court of Appeal of Florida 1976, 338 So. 2d 1313)“…which were inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding under Section 934.06, Florida Statutes (1973). The court further held that the…”
- State v. Walls (Supreme Court of Florida 1978, 356 So. 2d 294)“…se of the electronic recording as evidence is prohibited by Section 934.06, Florida Statutes. Granting the motion to suppress, the t…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 803: ARRESTS, SEARCHES, SEARCH WARRANTS
§ 803-46Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communicationIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) Each application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication shall be made in writing upon oath or affirmation to a designated judge and shall be accompanied by a written memorandum recommending approval or disapproval by the department of the attorney general. If the application is being prepared by the prosecuting attorney of a county, the department of the attorney general shall provide its memorandum to the prosecuting attorney within twenty-four hours of the attorney's request to the department. The application shall state the applicant's authority to make the application. As used in this section, "designated judge" means a circuit court judge specifically designated by the chief justice of the Hawaii supreme court or any circuit court judge or district court judge, if no circuit court judge has been designated by the chief justice or is otherwise unavailable.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1989
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Lincoln (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 1982, 3 Haw. App. 107)“…picions. Lincoln also argues that the State violated HRS § 803-46 (1978) by not following proper minimiza…”
- State v. Lo (Hawaii Supreme Court 1983, 66 Haw. 653)“…on. To be sure, the Wiretap Law speaks of a remedy — HRS § 803-46(i)(l) permits an “aggrieved person” to…”
- State v. Rothman (Hawaii Supreme Court 1989, 70 Haw. 546)“…e interception of wire or wireless communications!.] HRS § 803-46 provides the procedure for authorizing…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Idaho Code
§ 18-6705Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire, electronic or oral communications. Whenever any wire, electronic or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapterIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
18-6705. Prohibition of use as evidence of intercepted wire, electronic or oral communications. Whenever any wire, electronic or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-01 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.idaho.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1987
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Martin (Idaho Court of Appeals 1987, 113 Idaho 461)“…tronic surveillance statutes contain an exclusionary rule. Idaho Code § 18-6705 provides that no part of any intercept…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Louisiana Revised Statutes
§ 15:1310Procedure for interception of wire, electronic, or oral communicationsIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
A. Each application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication shall be made in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge in whose district such interception of wire, electronic, or oral communication shall take place and shall state the applicant's authority to make such application. Each application shall include the following information: (1) The identity of the investigative or law enforcement officer making the application and the person authorizing the application. (2) A full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that an order should be issued, including: (a) Details as to the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed, (b) A particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which or the place where the communication is to be intercepted, (c) A particular description of the type of communications sought to be intercepted, and (d) The identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communications are to be intercepted.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legis.la.gov
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Esteen (Louisiana Court of Appeal 2002, 821 So. 2d 60)“…because the State failed to comply with the requirements of La. R.S. 15:1310(F)(1), 15:1310(F)(2) and 15:1310(A)(3).…”
- State v. Decay (Louisiana Court of Appeal 2001, 798 So. 2d 1057)“…because they had not been sealed immediately as required by La.R.S. 15:1310(F)(1), because they had not been sealed…”
- State v. Smith (Louisiana Court of Appeal 2017, 227 So. 3d 337)“…der the act, a specified procedure’ must be followed. See La. R.S. 15:1310(A)-(G). In this case, Defendant argues…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Louisiana Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article
§ 10-405In forcecited in 11 of our articles
§10–405. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, whenever any wire, oral, or electronic communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of the communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of this State, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this subtitle.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2013
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- King v. State (Court of Appeals of Maryland 2013, 434 Md. 472)“…that information would be in violation of this subtitle. Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-405(a) (1957, 2013 Repl. Vol.).…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maryland Audio Recording Laws: Two-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Maryland Dashcam Laws: Legality, Audio Rules, and Evidence Use (2026), Maryland Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Audio, and Privacy (2026)
Maine Revised Statutes, Title 15: COURT PROCEDURE -- CRIMINAL, Part 2: PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TRIAL, Chapter 102: INTERCEPTION OF WIRE AND ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
§ 713EvidenceIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
The contents of an interception are not admissible in court, except that: [PL 2011, c. 507, §7 (RPR).] 1. Contents obtained under the laws of another jurisdiction. The contents of an interception of any oral communication or wire communication that has been legally obtained under the laws of another jurisdiction in which the interception occurred are admissible in the courts of this State, subject to the Maine Rules of Evidence; and 2. Contents obtained under this chapter. The contents of an interception of any oral communication or wire communication that has been legally obtained pursuant to section 712, subsection 2 or 3 are admissible in the courts of this State, subject to the Maine Rules of Evidence, if related to the administration of criminal justice as defined in Title 16, section 703, subsection 1 for the purposes of the Criminal History Record Information Act or as defined in Title 16, section 803, subsection 2 for the purposes of the Intelligence and Investigative Record Information Act; the administration of juvenile justice; or the statutory functions of a state agency.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.maine.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2014
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Glenn A. Griffin v. Cristie J. Griffin (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 2014, 92 A.3d 1144)“…ecordings were therefore inadmissible at trial pursuant to 15 M.R.S. § 713 and that the court erred when it denied…”
- State v. Kehling (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine 1991, 601 A.2d 620)“…g was played to the jury at his trial. By state law, 15 M.R.S.A. § 713, the contents of an “intercepted” wire…”
- State of Maine v. Simpson (Superior Court of Maine 2002)“…ress based on a lack of probable cause to arrest.* 2. Does 15 M.R.S.A. § 713 require the suppression of any tape-rec…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maine Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Cell, Landline, and VoIP (2026)
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 626A: WIRE, ELECTRONIC, OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS; INTERCEPTION
§ 626A.12MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCEIn force
Subdivision 1. Motion. Any aggrieved person may move to suppress the contents of any intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom on the grounds that: (1) the wire, oral, or electronic communication was unlawfully intercepted; (2) the order of authorization or approval under which it was intercepted is insufficient on its face; (3) the interception was not made in conformity with the order of authorization or approval; (4) there was not probable cause for believing the existence of the grounds on which the warrant was issued; or (5) the evidence was otherwise illegally obtained. The court shall hear evidence upon any issue of fact necessary to a determination of the motion. If the motion is granted, the contents of the intercepted wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, shall be treated as having been obtained in violation of this chapter. If the motion is denied, the order denying such may be reviewed on appeal from a judgment of conviction notwithstanding the fact that such judgment of conviction is predicated upon a plea of guilty. Subd. 1a. [Repealed, 1989 c 336 art 1 s 17] Subd. 2. Time of making motion.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1989
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Quinn (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1989, 436 N.W.2d 758)“…irements renders a wiretap "unlawful" within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 626A.12(1), nor does every technical omission j…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Montana Code Annotated, Title 46
§ 46-5-607Admissibility Of Proof -- ViolationsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
46-5-607. Admissibility of proof -- violations. (1) Except as proof of a violation of this part, evidence obtained in violation of this part is not admissible in a civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding and may not be used in an affidavit in an effort to obtain a search warrant or court order. (2) The attorney general may apply for an injunction or commence a civil action against any governmental entity to compel compliance with the terms of this part.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mca.legmt.gov
Nebraska Revised Statutes, Chapter 86: TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
§ 86-2,115Interception; use as evidenceIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
No part of the contents of any intercepted wire or oral communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a state, or a political subdivision thereof if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of sections 86-271 to 86-2,115.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nebraskalegislature.gov
Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
§ 38.23Art. 38.23. EVIDENCE NOT TO BE USEDIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(a) No evidence obtained by an officer or other person in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or laws of the State of Texas, or of the Constitution or laws of the United States of America, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the trial of any criminal case. In any case where the legal evidence raises an issue hereunder, the jury shall be instructed that if it believes, or has a reasonable doubt, that the evidence was obtained in violation of the provisions of this Article, then and in such event, the jury shall disregard any such evidence so obtained. (b) It is an exception to the provisions of Subsection (a) of this Article that the evidence was obtained by a law enforcement officer acting in objective good faith reliance upon a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate based on probable cause.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at statutes.capitol.texas.gov
Cited in 883 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hutch v. State (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas 1996, 922 S.W.2d 166)“…rdingly, the trial judge instructed the jury as required by Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 38.23 that illegally obtained evidence was no…”
- Gelinas, James Henry (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas 2013, 398 S.W.3d 703)“…legible at a distance of 50 feet from the rear.") 3. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.23(a) ("No evidence obtained by an officer…”
- Alvarado v. State (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas 1993, 853 S.W.2d 17)“…confession of appellant was not excludable on the basis of Tex.Code Crim.Proc. article 38.23 or the federal exclusionary *25 rule.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Utah Code, Title 77: Criminal Procedure
§ 77-23a-10Application for order -- Authority of order -- Emergency action -- Application -- Entry -- Conditions -- Extensions -- Recordings -- Admissibility or suppression -- Appeal by state.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Each application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication shall be made in writing, upon oath or affirmation to a judge of competent jurisdiction, and shall state the applicant's authority to make the application. Each application shall include: (a) the identity of the investigative or law enforcement officer making the application, and the officer authorizing the application; (b) a full and complete statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify the applicant's belief that an order should be issued, including: (i) details regarding the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed; (ii) except as provided in Subsection (12), a particular description of the nature and location of the facilities from which, or the place where, the communication is to be intercepted; (iii) a particular description of the type of communication sought to be intercepted; and (iv) the identity of the person, if known, committing the offense and whose communication is to be intercepted; (c) a full and complete statement as to whether other investigative procedures have been…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Hebeishy (Court of Appeals of Utah 2022, 522 P.3d 943)“…v. Quintana, 70 F.3d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir. 1995) (comparing Utah Code Ann. § 77-23a-10(1)(c) with 18 U.S.C. § 2518(1)(c)), 12…”
- United States v. Lupe Gomez (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 1995, 67 F.3d 1515)“…ntity of marijuana from Salinas. Additionally, pursuant to Utah Code Ann. Sec. 77-23a-10 (1990), the strike force obtained autho…”
- United States v. Diaz (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 1998)“…llenged by Mr. Diaz was obtained pursuant to Utah law. See Utah Code Ann. § 77-23a-10. However, we must apply the federal…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Revised Code of Washington
§ 9.73.030Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication—Consent required—Exceptions.In forcecited in 46 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication; (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 221 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Washington courts have policed what counts as a private communication under Sec. 9.73.030: State v. Gunwall (1986) concluded a pen register intercept comes within a private communication transmitted by telephone, while State v. Riley (1993) held a line trap that reveals only the calling number does not record one.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Salinas (Washington Supreme Court 1992, 119 Wash. 2d 192)“…alties for divulging a telegram or opening a sealed letter. RCW 9.73.030-.070, making it unlawful to intercept,…”
- State v. Gunwall (Washington Supreme Court 1986, 106 Wash. 2d 54)✓Everett police pulled a suspected cocaine dealer's toll records and put a pen register on her line without valid legal process; the court held a pen register intercept is a private communication transmitted by telephone, installable only under the eavesdropping statutes.
- State v. Brown (Washington Supreme Court 1997, 132 Wash. 2d 529)✓Palm Springs officers secretly recorded a Washington murder suspect's statements after his arrest; the court treated RCW 9.73.090, not 9.73.030, as the provision reaching recordings of arrested persons, and held the Privacy Act did not require suppressing that recording.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026), Oregon Phone Call Recording Laws: Split Consent Rules and Penalties
§ 9.73.040Intercepting private communication—Court order permitting interception—Grounds for issuance—Duration—Renewal.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) An ex parte order for the interception of any communication or conversation listed in RCW 9.73.030 may be issued by any superior court judge in the state upon verified application of either the state attorney general or any county prosecuting attorney setting forth fully facts and circumstances upon which the application is based and stating that: (a) There are reasonable grounds to believe that national security is endangered, that a human life is in danger, that arson is about to be committed, or that a riot is about to be committed, and (b) There are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the protection of national security, the preservation of human life, or the prevention of arson or a riot, and (c) There are no other means readily available for obtaining such information.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 21 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Wanrow (Washington Supreme Court 1977, 88 Wash. 2d 221)“…need to procure a court order permitting interception under RCW 9.73.040; the information obtained is not inadmi…”
- State v. Fjermestad (Washington Supreme Court 1990, 114 Wash. 2d 828)“…W 9.73-.030) or (b) if judicial authorization was obtained (RCW 9.73.040). The statute made any information obta…”
- State v. O'NEILL (Washington Supreme Court 1985, 103 Wash. 2d 853)“…poses set forth below. The first of these two statutes is RCW 9.73.040 which was enacted in 1967. [15] To obt…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 9.73.050Admissibility of intercepted communication in evidence.In forcecited in 13 of our articles
Any information obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030 or pursuant to any order issued under the provisions of RCW 9.73.040 shall be inadmissible in any civil or criminal case in all courts of general or limited jurisdiction in this state, except with the permission of the person whose rights have been violated in an action brought for damages under the provisions of RCW 9.73.030 through 9.73.080, or in a criminal action in which the defendant is charged with a crime, the commission of which would jeopardize national security.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 116 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Wanrow (Washington Supreme Court 1977, 88 Wash. 2d 221)“…epartment of an emergency telephone call, on the basis that RCW 9.73.050 and RCW 9.73.090 which authorize the re…”
- State v. Rupe (Washington Supreme Court 1984, 101 Wash. 2d 664)“…find that this statement violated the terms of the statute. RCW 9.73.050 provides that information obtained in v…”
- State v. Fjermestad (Washington Supreme Court 1990, 114 Wash. 2d 828)“…At the time RCW 9.73.040 was enacted, the Legislature added RCW 9.73.050 4 which deals with admissibility of *…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Audio Recording Laws: Two-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Washington Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026), Washington Medical Recording Laws: Recording Doctors, Hospitals, and Telehealth (2026)
West Virginia Code
§ 62-1D-6Admissibility of evidence.In forcecited in 2 of our articles
Evidence obtained, directly or indirectly, by the interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication shall be received in evidence only in grand jury proceedings and criminal proceedings in magistrate court, circuit court, and any other court of competent jurisdiction: Provided, That evidence obtained in violation of the provisions of this article shall not be admissible in any proceeding.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at code.wvlegislature.gov
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Federal Rules of Evidence 101, 106, 401-403, 801-804, 901, 1001-1004, and 1101(www.uscourts.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)(uscode.house.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2515(uscode.house.gov).gov
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 34, 37(e)(www.uscourts.gov).gov
- Arizona: A.R.S. § 13-3005(A)(1)-(2)(www.azleg.gov).gov
- California: Cal. Penal Code § 632(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California: California Constitution, article I, § 28(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- California: People v. Guzman, S242244 (2019)(www4.courts.ca.gov).gov
- Colorado: C.R.S. § 16-15-102(9)-(11)(olls.info).gov
- Delaware: 11 Del. C. §§ 2402(c)(4), 2404(delcode.delaware.gov).gov
- District of Columbia: D.C. Code § 23-551(code.dccouncil.gov).gov
- Georgia: Mitchell v. State, 320 Ga. 673, 911 S.E.2d 607 (2025), applying O.C.G.A. §§ 24-9-901(a) and 24-9-923(c)(www.gasupreme.us).gov
- Kansas: K.S.A. § 22-2516(7)-(9)(www.kslegislature.gov).gov
- Kentucky: Kentucky Rule of Evidence 901(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
- Massachusetts: Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99(P)(malegislature.gov).gov
- Mississippi: Mississippi Rule of Evidence 901(courts.ms.gov).gov
- Missouri: Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.418(revisor.mo.gov).gov
- New Hampshire: N.H. RSA 570-A:2(gc.nh.gov).gov
- New Hampshire: N.H. RSA 570-A:6(gc.nh.gov).gov
- New Hampshire: State v. Clark, 2024 N.H. 64(www.courts.nh.gov).gov
- New Mexico: State v. Jesenya O., 2022-NMSC-014(supremecourt.nmcourts.gov).gov
- New York: N.Y. CPLR 4506(www.nysenate.gov).gov
- Ohio: Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.63(codes.ohio.gov).gov
- Oklahoma: 13 O.S. § 176.13(www.oklegislature.gov).gov
- Tennessee: Tennessee Rule of Evidence 901(www.tncourts.gov).gov
- Vermont: Vermont Constitution ch. I, art. 11; State v. Geraw/Blow line as restated in State v. Alexander, 2016 VT 19(www.vtcourts.gov).gov
- Virginia: Va. Code § 8.01-420.2(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
- Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. §§ 885.365, 968.30(9)(docs.legis.wisconsin.gov).gov
- Wyoming: Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-710(wyoleg.gov).gov
- Florida: Fla. Stat. § 934.06(www.leg.state.fl.us).gov
- Maryland: Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-405(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Washington: RCW 9.73.050(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- Illinois: 720 ILCS 5/14-5(www.ilga.gov).gov
- Pennsylvania: 18 Pa.C.S. § 5721.1(www.legis.state.pa.us).gov
- Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-184a(www.cga.ct.gov).gov
- Louisiana: La. R.S. § 15:1310(www.legis.la.gov).gov
- Minnesota: Minn. Stat. § 626A.12(www.revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Federal Rules of Evidence (current rules, last amended 2024), including Rules 104, 107, 901, 1001-1006 and 1101(uscourts.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (definitions of wire communication, oral communication and intercept)(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (civil action for unlawful interception, disclosure or use)(law.cornell.edu)
- South Carolina: S.C. Code § 23-1-240(G) (body-worn camera data; FOIA exemption and who may request and receive it)(scstatehouse.gov).gov
- California: Cal. Gov. Code § 7923.625 (withholding video or audio recordings of a critical incident)(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Alaska: Alaska Stat. § 12.37.120(law.justia.com)
- Hawaii: Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-46(law.justia.com)
- Idaho: Idaho Code § 18-6705(legislature.idaho.gov).gov
- Indiana: Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-1(law.justia.com)
- Iowa: Iowa Code § 808B.7(www.legis.iowa.gov).gov
- Maine: Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 713(legislature.maine.gov).gov
- Montana: Mont. Code Ann. § 46-5-607(mca.legmt.gov).gov
- Nebraska: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-2,115(nebraskalegislature.gov).gov
- Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 179.505(www.leg.state.nv.us).gov
- New Jersey: N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:156A-21(law.justia.com)
- North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-294(www.ncleg.gov).gov
- North Dakota: N.D. Cent. Code § 29-29.2-02(ndlegis.gov).gov
- Oregon: Or. Rev. Stat. § 41.910(www.oregonlegislature.gov).gov
- Rhode Island: R.I. Gen. Laws § 12-5.1-12(webserver.rilegislature.gov).gov
- South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-65(www.scstatehouse.gov).gov
- Texas: Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.23(statutes.capitol.texas.gov).gov
- Utah: Utah Code § 77-23a-10(le.utah.gov).gov
- West Virginia: W. Va. Code § 62-1D-6(code.wvlegislature.gov).gov
- Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.077(www.leg.state.nv.us).gov