AI Meeting Recording Laws by State: Complete Guide (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 9, 2026. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Whether an AI meeting recorder is legal in the United States depends on state law. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. 2511 permits one-party consent, but 13 states require all-party consent (Nevada for phone calls only), and recording without every participant's agreement can be charged as a felony in eight of those 13 states.
AI meeting recorders like Otter.ai, Fireflies, Fathom, and built-in tools from Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet have transformed how organizations capture meeting content. They also raise serious legal questions under federal and state wiretapping laws that were written decades before AI transcription existed.
Whether an AI meeting recorder is legal depends on where meeting participants are located, how the tool obtains consent, and whether courts classify the AI bot as a recording device or an unauthorized third-party interceptor. As of April 2026, federal litigation and state legislative action are actively reshaping this legal landscape.
Federal Law: The Starting Point
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), codified at 18 U.S.C. Section 2511, prohibits intentionally intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications. The critical exception: one party to the communication can consent to recording without notifying others.
Federal penalties for violations include up to 5 years imprisonment, fines up to $250,000, and civil damages of $10,000 per violation (or $100 per day, whichever is greater).
The Third-Party Question
The central legal question for AI meeting recorders: is the AI bot a "party" to the conversation, or a "third party" intercepting it?
In Ambriz v. Google (N.D. Cal.), the court denied Google's motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs adequately alleged Google's Contact Center AI acted as "the statutory actor doing real-time recording and reading in transit." The court applied a "capability test," holding that alleging the vendor had the capability to use intercepted data for its own purposes was sufficient to establish third-party status at the pleading stage.
This ruling has significant implications for every AI meeting recorder that processes, stores, or uses meeting data beyond simple transcription.
The Otter.ai Class Action
In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation (N.D. Cal., No. 5:25-cv-06911) consolidates four lawsuits filed between August and September 2025:
| Case | Key Claims | Core Allegation |
|---|---|---|
| Brewer v. Otter.ai | ECPA, CIPA, CFAA | OtterPilot joined Zoom without participant knowledge; data used for AI training |
| Walker v. Otter.ai | Illinois BIPA | Voiceprints collected to identify speakers without written consent |
| Theus v. Otter.ai | ECPA, CIPA | Auto-join enabled by default; continues joining after users disable it |
| Winston v. Otter.ai | ECPA, BIPA, CIPA | Default config does not notify non-users; notification only in Enterprise plan |
Additional AI recording lawsuits include Cruz v. Fireflies.AI (Illinois BIPA, Dec. 2025, voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in March 2026), Galanter v. Cresta (CIPA, June 2025), and Lisota v. Heartland Dental (federal wiretap, July 2025).
One-Party vs. Two-Party Consent States
The legal risk of using AI meeting recorders varies dramatically by state. In one-party consent states, the meeting host's consent may be sufficient. In two-party (all-party) consent states, every participant must agree before any AI tool records the conversation.
Two-Party (All-Party) Consent States
These 13 states require consent from all participants for at least some conversations; Nevada applies the rule to phone calls only. Using an AI meeting recorder without universal consent can result in felony charges in eight of them; in the rest the ceiling is a misdemeanor.
| State | Key Statute | Maximum Criminal Penalty | Guide |
|---|---|---|---|
| California | Cal. Penal Code 632 | 1 year/$2,500 (misd.) or 3 years (felony) | California AI Meeting Recording Laws |
| Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-189 (criminal); 52-570d (civil) | 5 years/$5,000 (Class D felony, but the criminal statute is one-party consent) | Connecticut AI Meeting Recording Laws |
| Delaware | Del. Code tit. 11, 1335 | 1 year (Class A misdemeanor) | Delaware AI Meeting Recording Laws |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. 934.03 | 5 years/$5,000 (felony) | Florida AI Meeting Recording Laws |
| Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 + BIPA | 3 years/$25,000 + $5,000/BIPA violation | Illinois AI Meeting Recording Laws |
| Maryland | Md. Code 10-402 | 5 years/$10,000 (felony) | Maryland AI Meeting Recording Laws |
| Massachusetts | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 99 | 5 years/$10,000 (all violations are felonies) | Massachusetts AI Meeting Recording Laws |
| Montana | Mont. Code 45-8-213 | 6 months (1st) to 5 years (3rd+) | Montana AI Meeting Recording Laws |
| Nevada | NRS 200.620 (text requires one-party consent plus an emergency with 72-hour court ratification; read as all-party in the fractured Lane v. Allstate decision) | 1-4 years (Category D felony) | Nevada AI Meeting Recording Laws |
| New Hampshire | N.H. RSA 570-A:2 | 7 years/$4,000 (Class B felony) | New Hampshire AI Meeting Recording Laws |
| Oregon | ORS 165.540 (all participants must be informed for in-person conversations and video calls; one-party for phone calls) | 364 days/$6,250 (Class A misdemeanor) | Oregon AI Meeting Recording Laws |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa.C.S. 5703 | 7 years/$15,000 (3rd-degree felony) | Pennsylvania AI Meeting Recording Laws |
| Washington | RCW 9.73.030, .080 | Gross misdemeanor: up to 364 days/$5,000 | Washington AI Meeting Recording Laws |
Two rows above need a caveat. Connecticut's criminal eavesdropping statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-189, applying the wiretapping and mechanical-overhearing definitions in 53a-187) is a one-party-consent crime: the Class D felony applies to intercepting a conversation without the consent of any party, not to simply lacking unanimous consent. Connecticut's all-party framing comes from a separate civil statute, Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d, which is satisfied by all-party consent, a recorded verbal notice at the start of the call, or a repeating beep tone, and which only allows a civil damages claim, not criminal charges. Oregon's ORS 165.540 also splits by communication type: recording a telephone call requires consent from only one participant, but in-person conversations require every participant to be specifically informed. Since 2021, ORS 165.535 has defined a "conversation" to include a communication through a video conferencing program, so an AI recorder on a Zoom, Teams or Google Meet video call falls under the inform-every-participant rule, not the one-party phone-call rule.
The penalty column splits more sharply than a blanket felony warning suggests. A violation can be charged as a felony in California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. Delaware caps the offense at a class A misdemeanor, because 11 Del. C. 1335(c) reserves the class G felony for the visual-image offenses in subsections (a)(6), (a)(7) and parts of (a)(9), not for intercepting a conversation under (a)(4). Oregon caps it at a Class A misdemeanor as well: ORS 165.540(9) states that a violation of subsection (1) or (2)(b) is a Class A misdemeanor, and the section contains no felony grading at all. Washington's offense is a gross misdemeanor, and Montana's first conviction carries up to six months in county jail, with the five-year state prison term reserved for a third or subsequent conviction.
One-Party Consent States
In these 37 states plus DC, the meeting host's consent as one party may be sufficient to authorize AI recording. However, the "capability test" from Ambriz v. Google means AI vendors that independently access or use meeting data could still face liability as unauthorized third parties.
| State | Guide | State | Guide |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | AL Guide | Nebraska | NE Guide |
| Alaska | AK Guide | New Jersey | NJ Guide |
| Arizona | AZ Guide | New Mexico | NM Guide |
| Arkansas | AR Guide | New York | NY Guide |
| Colorado | CO Guide | North Carolina | NC Guide |
| District of Columbia | DC Guide | North Dakota | ND Guide |
| Georgia | GA Guide | Ohio | OH Guide |
| Hawaii | HI Guide | Oklahoma | OK Guide |
| Idaho | ID Guide | Rhode Island | RI Guide |
| Indiana | IN Guide | South Carolina | SC Guide |
| Iowa | IA Guide | South Dakota | SD Guide |
| Kansas | KS Guide | Tennessee | TN Guide |
| Kentucky | KY Guide | Texas | TX Guide |
| Louisiana | LA Guide | Utah | UT Guide |
| Maine | ME Guide | Vermont | VT Guide |
| Minnesota | MN Guide | Virginia | VA Guide |
| Mississippi | MS Guide | West Virginia | WV Guide |
| Missouri | MO Guide | Wisconsin | WI Guide |
| Wyoming | WY Guide | ||
| Michigan | MI Guide |
Michigan is a notable case within this group. Its wiretapping statute, MCL 750.539c, is written as an all-party consent law, but Michigan courts have recognized a participant exception since Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982): a participant to a conversation can record it without notifying the other party, so Michigan functions as one-party consent for recordings made by a meeting participant.
AI Meeting Recorder Compliance Comparison
Not all AI meeting tools handle consent the same way. The table below compares how major tools notify participants and obtain consent.
| Tool | How It Joins | Consent Mechanism | Sued? | Legal Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Otter.ai (OtterPilot) | Joins as visible participant | Host responsible; notification only in Enterprise plan | Yes (4 lawsuits) | Highest |
| Fireflies.ai | Joins as participant; Chrome extension option | Email 1 hour before; opt-in/opt-out modes available | Yes (BIPA) | High |
| Fathom | Joins Zoom as participant | Pre-meeting consent email; recording banner visible | No | Moderate |
| Grain | Joins Zoom as participant | Disclaimer modal with consent choice | No | Low-Moderate |
| Read AI | Joins as participant | Requires host approval; "opt out" chat command | No | Low-Moderate |
| Krisp | Desktop app, no bot joins | User responsible for consent | No | Lower |
| Microsoft Copilot (Teams) | Built into Teams | All participants see notification; explicit consent via dial pad | No | Low |
| Google Gemini (Meet) | Built into Meet | Passive on-screen notification; pencil icon | No | Moderate |
| Zoom AI Companion | Built into Zoom | Participants cannot unmute until accepting consent notice | No | Lowest |
HIPAA and Healthcare Meetings
When meetings involve Protected Health Information (PHI), AI meeting recorders must comply with HIPAA requirements. The AI tool vendor must sign a Business Associate Agreement (BAA) with the healthcare provider before processing any PHI.
Tools offering HIPAA-compliant enterprise plans with BAA include Fireflies.ai, Otter.ai (Enterprise only), Fathom, and Krisp. Free-tier AI tools should never be used for meetings involving patient information, as they may use data for model training by default.
HIPAA violations carry penalties ranging from $137 to $68,928 per violation, up to $1.5 million per year for each violation category.
Attorney-Client Privilege
The NYC Bar issued Formal Opinion 2025-6 addressing AI recording of attorney-client conversations. Key requirements include obtaining client consent before using AI to record or transcribe, evaluating AI vendor data storage and training practices, and independently verifying AI-generated transcripts for accuracy.
AI-generated meeting transcripts are discoverable evidence. Using an AI recorder during privileged conversations creates risks of inadvertent waiver if the vendor's employees can access stored content.
Employer Mandates and Workplace Rights
Employers increasingly mandate AI meeting recorders for performance tracking, compliance, and training. The NLRA (Section 7) protects employees' rights to engage in concerted activity. The NLRB's Stericycle standard requires employer recording policies to preserve Section 7 rights and be grounded in legitimate business interests.
In all-party consent states, employers cannot unilaterally mandate AI recording without obtaining consent from all participants, including employees who object. Illinois HB 3773 (effective 2026) specifically prohibits AI-driven employment discrimination and requires employer notice when AI is used for hiring, promotion, or discipline decisions.
Cross-State Meetings
When meeting participants are in different states, the strictest applicable law generally governs. A meeting between participants in Texas (one-party) and California (all-party) requires all-party consent because California law applies to the California participant.
Organizations with employees or clients in multiple states should default to the strictest consent standard: obtain affirmative consent from all participants before enabling any AI recording tool.
Pending Legislation
Several states are considering laws that would directly affect AI meeting recorders:
- New York S5077: Would shift New York from one-party to all-party consent, adding it to the all-party consent states
- Texas RAIGA (HB 149): Imposes AI transparency and disclosure requirements effective January 2026
- Illinois HB 3773: Prohibits AI-driven employment discrimination, effective 2026
- California SB 942: AI Transparency Act requiring detection tools and watermarks, effective August 2026
As of April 2026, 1,561 AI-related bills have been introduced across 45 states, with 73 new AI laws adopted across 27 states in 2025 alone.
This guide provides general legal information, not legal advice. Recording laws are complex and vary significantly between jurisdictions. Consult an attorney for advice specific to your situation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are AI meeting recorders legal in the United States?
The legality depends on your state. Federal law allows one-party consent, but 13 states require all-party consent, including Nevada for phone calls. In those states, every meeting participant must agree to AI recording before it begins. Even in one-party consent states, courts are increasingly questioning whether AI bots qualify as unauthorized third-party interceptors.
What is the difference between one-party and two-party consent for AI meeting recording?
In one-party consent states, the meeting host's consent may be sufficient to use an AI recorder. In two-party (all-party) consent states, every participant must consent before any AI tool records the conversation. Penalties in two-party states vary widely: a violation can be charged as a felony in eight of the 13, reaching seven years in Pennsylvania, while Delaware, Oregon and Washington cap the offense at a misdemeanor.
Can I refuse to let an AI bot record my meeting?
Yes. In two-party consent states, you have the legal right to refuse recording, and the recording cannot proceed without your consent. Even in one-party consent states, many organizations allow participants to request that the bot be removed.
Is the Otter.ai recording notification sufficient consent?
Courts have not definitively ruled on this question. As of April 2026, four class action lawsuits challenge Otter.ai's consent practices. The lawsuits allege that Otter's default auto-join feature and limited participant notification do not constitute legally valid consent under federal and state wiretapping laws.
Can my employer force me to use an AI meeting recorder?
It depends on your state's consent laws and employment law protections. In two-party consent states, employers cannot unilaterally mandate recording without every participant's agreement. The NLRA also protects certain employee rights regarding workplace recording.
What penalties exist for illegally using an AI meeting recorder?
Penalties vary by state and range from misdemeanors (up to about a year in jail and fines in the low thousands) to felonies (up to 7 years prison, $15,000 fine in Pennsylvania). Federal penalties include up to 5 years imprisonment, $250,000 fine, and civil damages of $10,000 or more per violation.
Does HIPAA apply to AI meeting recorders in healthcare?
Yes. When meetings involve Protected Health Information, the AI tool vendor must sign a Business Associate Agreement with the healthcare provider. Free-tier AI tools should never be used for meetings involving patient information, as they may use data for model training by default.
Which AI meeting recorder has the best consent mechanism?
Zoom AI Companion currently offers the most robust built-in consent mechanism, requiring participants to actively accept a consent notice before unmuting or activating their camera. Microsoft Teams Copilot also offers explicit recording consent for audio conferencing participants.
Updates
Corrected the Oregon entry: Oregon requires one-party consent for phone calls but requires every participant to be informed for in-person conversations and video calls, which ORS 165.535 treats as conversations.
Corrected the Oregon, Delaware and Pennsylvania entries in the all-party consent table, narrowed the felony warning to the eight states where a felony charge is actually available, clarified the Nevada statute, and removed a duplicated paragraph.
Fixed two rows in the all-party consent state table: Connecticut's cited felony penalty actually comes from a separate one-party-consent criminal statute (not the civil statute previously cited), and Oregon requires all-party consent only for in-person conversations, not for the phone and video calls AI meeting recorders capture.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Corrected Michigan's classification: MCL 750.539c is written as all-party consent, but a 1982 Michigan Court of Appeals ruling (Sullivan v. Gray) created a participant exception that makes it function as one-party consent, matching this site's dedicated Michigan recording-laws page. Michigan moved out of the two-party consent table (now 13 states) and into the one-party consent list (now 38 entries) with an explanatory note.
Follow-up correction: a prior pass (Aug 7) had already updated this page's state counts to '14 all-party / 36 one-party plus DC' to match the tables as they stood then, which still wrongly included Michigan in the two-party table. This session's Michigan fix moved Michigan from the two-party table to the one-party table (per Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982)), so the counts are now corrected to 13 all-party consent states and 37 one-party states plus DC, and New York's pending shift is now correctly described as the 14th all-party state.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the state counts to match the page's own tables: 14 all-party consent states and 36 one-party states plus DC.
Corrected the Washington row in the Two-Party Consent States table: the '5 years/$10,000 felony' figure was wrongly attributed to RCW 9.73.030 (which sets only the consent requirement, no penalty). Washington's actual penalty, under RCW 9.73.080, is a gross misdemeanor (up to 364 days, $5,000 fine), matching the state's own AI meeting recording guide.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
State-by-state comparison
Each state guide below is paired with the governing statute our editors adjudicated for it, held in our own legal record and verified against the official source.
Each statute shown is the same adjudicated anchor its state guide renders, independently verified against primary sources. A dash means not yet adjudicated in our record — never that no law exists.
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
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: California Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?
Florida Statutes
§ 934.03Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.In forcecited in 53 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who:(a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (b) Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when:1. Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 74 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Walls (1978) held that recording an in-home oral communication without the consent of all parties violated section 934.03 and required suppression, and State v. Inciarrano (1985) held the statute protects only communications uttered with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Walls (Supreme Court of Florida 1978, 356 So. 2d 294)✓An extortion victim secretly recorded threats made to him in his own home; the court held that was a protected oral communication, that recording it without every party's consent violated Section 934.03, and that Section 934.06 barred using the tape as evidence.
- SHARRON TASHA FORD v. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2021)“…ng oral communications in violation of the wiretap statute, section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2009), and for obstructing without vio…”
- State v. Calhoun (Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida 1984, 7 Fla. Supp. 2d 3)“…hall not be violated” . . . (emphasis mine) Furthermore, section 934.03, Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful for *6 any person (…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can You Record ICE Agents? Know Your Rights by State (2026), Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026), Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026)
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 750.539cEavesdropping upon private conversationIn forcecited in 44 of our articles
Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same in violation of this section, is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 32 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Michigan courts read MCL 750.539c to reach third-party eavesdropping only. Sullivan v. Gray (1982) held the statutory phrase "private discourse of others" excludes recording by a participant in the conversation; People v. Lucas (1991) held an officer who answered an arrestee's ringing car phone did not violate the section.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Lucas (Michigan Court of Appeals 1991, 188 Mich. App. 554)✓Police answering the arrested defendant's ringing car phone took drug-purchase calls and testified to them; the court held the officer was not an eavesdropper because there was no private discourse between the sender and some other receiver, so MCL 750.539c was not violated.
- Sullivan v. Gray (Michigan Court of Appeals 1982, 117 Mich. App. 476)✓A party to a phone call about a failed car dealership sale secretly taped it and the transcript was used in later litigation; reading the statute to reach only the private discourse of others, the court held participant recording is not eavesdropping under MCL 750.539c.
- People v. Warner (Michigan Supreme Court 1977, 401 Mich. 186)✓A motel switchboard operator deliberately listened in on a guest's call and reported it to police; the court held her willful eavesdropping violated MCL 750.539c, but the defendant, not shown to be a party to the call, had no standing to suppress the resulting evidence.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for Landlines, Cell Phones, and VoIP (2026), Michigan Recording Laws (2026): Consent Rules and Participant Exception, Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026)
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: Oregon Phone Call Recording Laws: Split Consent Rules and Penalties, Ring Doorbell Laws by State: Complete 2026 Legal Guide, Nanny Cam Laws: Are Hidden Cameras Legal at Home?
§ 9.73.080Penalties.In forcecited in 17 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any person who violates RCW 9.73.030 is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. (2) Any person who knowingly alters, erases, or wrongfully discloses any recording in violation of RCW 9.73.090(1)(c) is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 13 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)“…9.73.090, which opens with a waiver of RCW 9.73.030 through RCW 9.73.080, [9] i.e., the recording is not unlaw…”
- State v. Williams (Washington Supreme Court 1980, 94 Wash. 2d 531)✓ATF agents recorded a suspect's conversations with an informant and undercover agents with only one party's consent. The court assumed without deciding that the RCW 9.73.080 criminal penalty may not reach federal agents, but held the tapes were still inadmissible in state court.
- State v. Clark (Washington Supreme Court 2007, 916 P.2d 384)“…Violation of RCW 9.73.030 constitutes a gross misdemeanor, RCW 9.73.080, and may also result in civil liability…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Employer Threatening to Call Immigration? Your Rights in the U.S.
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 53a (Penal Code), Chapter 952
§ 53a-189Eavesdropping: Class D felony.In forcecited in 18 of our articles
(a) A person is guilty of eavesdropping when he unlawfully engages in wiretapping or mechanical overhearing of a conversation. (b) Eavesdropping is a class D felony.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2020
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Washington v. Meachum (1996) held the eavesdropping statutes, section 53a-189 among them, are violated only when neither party to a call knows it is being monitored. State v. McLoughlin (1998), a trial court ruling on a scanner intercept, read 53a-189 to cover cordless calls, a question no Connecticut appellate court had decided.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. McLoughlin (Connecticut Superior Court 1998, 45 Conn. Super. Ct. 497)“…on. Subsequently, the defendant was charged in violation of General Statutes § 53a-189, eavesdropping, which is a class D felo…”
- Rado v. Board of Education of the Borough of Naugatuck (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1990, 216 Conn. 541)✓A tenured teacher acquitted of eavesdropping was fired after a panel found he tampered with the school phone system to overhear staff calls; the court treated that conduct as proscribed by section 53a-189 and upheld the moral-misconduct finding.
- Washington v. Meachum (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1996, 238 Conn. 692)✓Inmates challenged prison rules allowing officials to monitor and record their nonprivileged phone calls; the Connecticut Supreme Court held the eavesdropping statutes are violated only when neither party knows the call is being monitored, so the noticed recording was lawful.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 53a-187Definitions. Applicability.In forcecited in 22 of our articles
(a) The following definitions are applicable to sections 53a-188 and 53a-189: (1) “Wiretapping” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a telephonic or telegraphic communication or a communication made by cellular radio telephone by a person other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. The normal operation of a telephone or telegraph corporation and the normal use of the services and facilities furnished by such corporation pursuant to its tariffs shall not be deemed “wiretapping”. (2) “Mechanical overhearing of a conversation” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. (3) “Unlawfully” means not specifically authorized by law. For purposes of this section, “cellular radio telephone” means a wireless telephone authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to operate in the frequency bandwidth reserved for cellular radio telephones.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 12 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Connecticut courts read section 53a-187's definitions to reach only surreptitious, nonconsensual monitoring. State v. Grullon (1989) applied it to place one-party-consent recordings outside the eavesdropping statutes, and Washington v. Meachum (1996) held those statutes are violated only when neither party knows the call is monitored.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Grullon (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1989, 212 Conn. 195)✓Police recorded the defendant's calls with his brother, who consented; the court held that replacing the older wiretap penal statute with section 53a-187, which reaches recording only when no party consents, gave no reason to exclude the transcripts.
- Washington v. Meachum (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1996, 238 Conn. 692)✓Inmates challenged prison rules allowing nonprivileged collect calls to be monitored after posted signs, signed forms and a recurring tone; reading section 53a-187's consent-based definitions, the court held the eavesdropping statutes are violated only when neither party knows.
- State v. McVeigh (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1993, 224 Conn. 593)✓Police used a scanner in a neighbor's apartment to record a couple's cordless phone calls; the court rejected the State's argument that a 1989 amendment adding cellular phones to section 53a-187's wiretapping definition left cordless calls unprotected, and ordered suppression.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Colorado Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Colorado Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent and Interstate Rules, New York Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 52 (Civil Actions), Chapter 925
§ 52-570dAction for illegal recording of private telephonic communications.In forcecited in 54 of our articles
(a) No person shall use any instrument, device or equipment to record an oral private telephonic communication unless the use of such instrument, device or equipment (1) is preceded by consent of all parties to the communication and such prior consent either is obtained in writing or is part of, and obtained at the start of, the recording, or (2) is preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning and is part of the communication by the recording party, or (3) is accompanied by an automatic tone warning device which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at intervals of approximately fifteen seconds during the communication while such instrument, device or equipment is in use.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 22 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp. (1998) held section 52-570d creates a cause of action unknown at common law that is strictly construed, and does not reach a third party's rerecording of an already illegal tape. Jezouit v. Malloy (2019) held the statute does not waive the state's sovereign immunity from suit.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp. (Connecticut Appellate Court 1998, 47 Conn. App. 764)✓A girlfriend secretly taped a radio employee's call, and a coworker re-recorded that tape and used it to get him fired. The court held section 52-570d, strictly construed, bars taping a private call but not a third party's re-recording of an already illegal tape.
- Jezouit v. Malloy (Connecticut Appellate Court 2019, 193 Conn. App. 576)“…his complaint because (1) he brought his claim pursuant to General Statutes § 52-570d, which he contends waives sovereign imm…”
- State v. Skok (Supreme Court of Connecticut 2015)“…on without the consent of all parties to the communication. General Statutes § 52-570d (a) prohibits the use of ‘‘any instrume…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Phone Call Recording Laws, Alabama Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know, Alaska Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026)
Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 165: Offenses Involving Fraud or Deception
§ 165.540Obtaining contents of communicationsIn forcecited in 47 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 or 133.726 or subsections (2) to (8) of this section, a person may not: (a) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a telecommunication or a radio communication to which the person is not a participant, by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, unless consent is given by at least one participant. (b) Tamper with the wires, connections, boxes, fuses, circuits, lines or any other equipment or facilities of a telecommunication or radio communication company over which messages are transmitted, with the intent to obtain unlawfully the contents of a telecommunication or radio communication to which the person is not a participant. (c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 76 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Fleetwood (2000) applied ORS 165.540 to body wire evidence, holding that words spoken into a telephone are a telecommunication under subsection (1)(a) and that the (5)(a)(B) exception fails unless the officer or the officer's agent shares reciprocally in the conversation, so the recordings were inadmissible.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Klein (Oregon Supreme Court 2012, 352 Or. 302)“…eing 3 recorded. Conversations recorded in violation of ORS 165.540 are not admissible in 4 court excep…”
- North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Oliver (Oregon Supreme Court 1979, 286 Or. 639)✓A lumber wholesaler secretly monitored traders' calls; on de novo review the court said the practice may have violated ORS 165.540 but refused to rest unclean hands on it, since the ex-employee's calls were never monitored. The employer's noncompete suit failed on other grounds.
- State v. Fleetwood (Oregon Supreme Court 2000, 331 Or. 511)✓A detective wired an informant and recorded the suspect's side of a phone call and his talks with his mother and a juvenile seller; the court held those interceptions violated ORS 165.540(1)(a) and (1)(c) because the informant was not a participant, and upheld suppression.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Oregon Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections, Oregon Audio Recording Laws: Split Consent Rules for Conversations and Calls, Oregon Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Consent
Nevada Revised Statutes, Chapter 200: CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
§ 200.620Interception and attempted interception of wire communication prohibited; exceptions.In forcecited in 38 of our articles
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5 and NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, 209.419 and 704.195, it is unlawful for any person to intercept or attempt to intercept any wire communication unless: (a) The interception or attempted interception is made with the prior consent of one of the parties to the communication; and (b) An emergency situation exists and it is impractical to obtain a court order as required by NRS 179.410 to 179.515, inclusive, before the interception, in which event the interception is subject to the requirements of subsection 3. If the application for ratification is denied, any use or disclosure of the information so intercepted is unlawful, and the person who made the interception shall notify the sender and the receiver of the communication that: (1) The communication was intercepted; and (2) Upon application to the court, ratification of the interception was denied.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.nv.us
Cited in 18 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Nevada reads NRS 200.620 as an all-party consent rule for phone recording, with a territorial limit. Lane v. Allstate Insurance held a participant who taped his own calls without the other parties' consent violated it; DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC VS. BUCKLES held it does not reach calls recorded from outside Nevada.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lane v. Allstate Insurance (Nevada Supreme Court 1998, 114 Nev. 1176)✓A former employee secretly taped hundreds of his own phone calls with his ex-employer's staff to build his suit; the court held NRS 200.620 bars recording a call without every party's consent, so the tapes were excluded and the dismissal of his suit was reversed.
- State v. Reyes (Nevada Supreme Court 1991, 107 Nev. 191)✓Police had an interpreter listen on a station extension phone while an informant set up a drug buy; the court held that officers' use of regularly installed telephone equipment in the ordinary course of their duties is not an interception under NRS 200.620.
- ABID VS. ABID (CHILD CUSTODY) (Nevada Supreme Court 2017, 2017 NV 94)“…corded phone conversations in violation of NRS 200.620 to obtain evidence to support tort…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: One-Party Consent States: Complete 2026 Guide, Georgia Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Georgia Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules (2026)
Delaware Code, Title 11 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Chapter 005 (SPECIFIC OFFENSES)
§ 1335Violation of privacy; class A misdemeanor; class G felony.In forcecited in 21 of our articles
(a) A person is guilty of violation of privacy when, except as authorized by law, the person: (1) Trespasses on property intending to subject anyone to eavesdropping or other surveillance in a private place; or (2) Installs in any private place, without consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy there, any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds or events in that place; or (3) Installs or uses outside a private place any device for hearing, recording, amplifying or broadcasting sounds originating in that place which would not ordinarily be audible or comprehensible outside, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy there; or (4) Intercepts without the consent of all parties thereto a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of communicating privately, including private conversation; or (5) Divulges without the consent of the sender and the receiver the existence or contents of any message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of communicating privately if the accused knows that the message was unlawfully intercepted or if the accused learned of the message in the course of…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at delcode.delaware.gov
Cited in 15 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Pulgini (1976) held 11 Del. C. 1335 does not reach police acts covered by sections 1336 and 1431, so a police interception made with one party's consent was lawful. State of Delaware v. Steven Wu (2026) construed 1335(a)(9)(b) as protecting confidentiality from third parties regardless of whether the relationship has ended.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Pulgini (Superior Court of Delaware 1976, 366 A.2d 1198)✓Police recorded a call between the defendant and an informant with the informant's consent but no court order. The court held section 1335 does not apply to police acts covered by sections 1336 and 1431, and one-party consent made the interception lawful.
- State of Delaware v. Steven Wu (Delaware Court of Common Pleas 2026)✓Charged after leaving printed intimate photos from a past affair in the woman's shared mailbox, a man sought a pretrial ruling on section 1335(a)(9)(b). On uncontested facts, the court read beyond that relationship as disclosure outside the private relationship, ended or not.
- Duffy v. State (Supreme Court of Delaware 2019)“…er 2017, Duffy was indicted for Violation of Privacy under 11 Del. C. § 1335(a)(7). The charges arose from Duffy tak…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Delaware GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026), Delaware Video Recording Laws: Consent Rules, Surveillance, and Penalties (2026), Delaware Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Privacy Protections (2026)
Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720, Act 5 (Criminal Code of 2012)
§ 14-2Elements of the offense; affirmative defenseIn forcecited in 52 of our articles
(a) A person commits eavesdropping when he or she knowingly and intentionally: (1) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of overhearing, transmitting, or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all of the parties to the private conversation; (2) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of transmitting or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all other parties to the private conversation; (3) Intercepts, records, or transcribes, in a surreptitious manner, any private electronic communication to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all parties to the private electronic communication; (4) Manufactures, assembles, distributes, or possesses any electronic, mechanical, eavesdropping, or other device knowing that or having reason to know that the design of the device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious overhearing, transmitting, or recording of private conversations or the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 92 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Melongo (Illinois Supreme Court 2014, 2014 IL 114852)“…ations of section 14-2 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/14-2 (West 2008)), which defines the offense…”
- People v. Smith (Appellate Court of Illinois 2025, 2025 IL App (1st) 220116)“…ropping violated section 14-2 of the Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/14-2 (West 2014)) and that then State’s Att…”
- Cook Au Vin, LLC v. Mid-Century Insurance Co. (Appellate Court of Illinois 2023, 226 N.E.3d 694)“…onversation by one who is not a party to the conversation. 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(1) (West 2020). In enacting the stat…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Ohio Smart Glasses Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Guide, Arizona Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know, Arkansas Phone Call Recording Laws: Landline, Cell, and VoIP Rules (2026)
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 forcecited in 34 of our articles
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.
Also relied on in: Recordings as Evidence: US Court Rules by State, Idaho Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026), Missouri Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses)
§ 5703Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communicationsIn forcecited in 58 of our articles
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he: (1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication; (2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or (3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 121 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Brachbill (1989) held Section 5703(1) is not limited to interceptions made with an intercepting device, so an officer who listened on a telephone extension without the prior approval Section 5704(2)(ii) requires violated the section, and the testimony had to be suppressed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1987, 370 Pa. Super. 179)“…and other electronic interceptions of communications, see 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, carved out limited exceptions to these…”
- Commonwealth v. Bennett (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 1976, 245 Pa. Super. 457)“…ode, Act of Dec. 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1 et seq. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, as amended Dec. 27, 1974, P.L. 1007, N…”
- Commonwealth v. Brachbill (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1989, 520 Pa. 533)✓A state trooper listened on an extension phone to a call between a former inmate and a guard charged with abusing him; the court held section 5703 bars any willful interception, not only one using an intercepting device, so the trooper's testimony should have been suppressed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Pennsylvania Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Pennsylvania Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections (2026), Pennsylvania Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Felony Penalties (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, 5:25-cv-06911 (N.D. Cal.)(courtlistener.com)
- DOJ Justice Manual Section 1050(justice.gov).gov
- California Penal Code Section 632(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
- Illinois BIPA (740 ILCS 14)(ilga.gov).gov
- Pennsylvania Wiretap Act(legis.state.pa.us).gov
- Washington RCW 9.73.030(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- NYC Bar Formal Opinion 2025-6(nycbar.org)
- NPR: Otter AI class action(npr.org)
- New York Senate Bill S5077(nysenate.gov).gov
- Washington RCW 9.73.080 (Penalties)(app.leg.wa.gov).gov
- ORS 165.540 - Oregon obtaining contents of communications (165.540(9): Class A misdemeanor)(oregonlegislature.gov)
- 11 Del. C. 1335 - Delaware violation of privacy (1335(c) grading)(delcode.delaware.gov)
- 18 Pa.C.S. 5703 - Pennsylvania interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communications(legis.state.pa.us)