Maryland
Maryland AI Meeting Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Required
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Maryland is one of the strictest recording consent states in the country, and that strictness creates serious obstacles for AI meeting tools. Under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 10-402, recording any wire, oral, or electronic communication requires the consent of all parties. Not one participant. Not a majority. Every single person on the call.
For organizations deploying Otter.ai, Fireflies.ai, or Microsoft Copilot in Maryland, this means a Zoom meeting with 15 participants requires the prior consent of all 15 before the AI recorder activates. A single holdout makes the recording unlawful. And the penalties are severe: violations are felonies carrying up to 5 years in prison and $10,000 in fines. Maryland also bars illegally obtained recordings from being used as evidence in court, eliminating even the potential upside of unauthorized recording.
The state legislature has considered narrowing the all-party consent requirement in recent sessions, particularly for recordings of crimes such as domestic violence. Those bills failed in the 2025 and 2026 sessions, and the core framework remains intact. Anyone using AI meeting tools in Maryland operates under one of the most demanding consent regimes in the nation.
Maryland's All-Party Consent Framework
Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 10-402 establishes the foundation of Maryland's recording law. The statute makes it unlawful for any person to willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication. The consent exception requires that all parties to the communication agree before any interception occurs.
What the Statute Covers
Section 10-402 applies broadly to three categories of communication:
Wire communications include any aural transfer made in whole or in part through wire, cable, or other similar connection. This encompasses traditional phone calls, VoIP services, and video conferencing platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet.
Oral communications are defined in Section 10-401 as "any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation." This covers face-to-face conversations that are private, not every remark made in a public setting.
Electronic communications encompass any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence transmitted electronically. This broad definition captures text-based chat, screen sharing, and data streams within virtual meeting platforms.
AI meeting tools that record, transcribe, or analyze any of these communication types fall within Section 10-402's scope.
The All-Party Consent Standard
Unlike one-party consent states where a single participant's agreement authorizes recording, Maryland demands the prior consent of every party to the communication. The statute does not specify a particular form of consent. Two limits on its reach matter: some business telephone equipment used in the ordinary course of business falls outside the statute, and even a recording everyone agreed to is unlawful if it is made to commit a crime or tort.
Maryland courts do recognize implied consent: in Boston v. State (2017), the intermediate appellate court found it where a message warned that a jail call was being recorded and the parties kept talking. But no Maryland appellate decision we located applies implied consent to a virtual meeting or an AI note-taker, and it depends on proof that each person actually knew about the recording. Relying on implied consent therefore carries significant risk in Maryland. The safer approach is explicit, affirmative consent from each participant.
The all-party standard means that a single participant who objects to recording prevents the AI tool from lawfully operating. In a virtual meeting with 20 participants, 19 affirmative consents and 1 objection means the recording cannot proceed.
Law Enforcement Exception
Section 10-402(c)(2) includes a narrow exception for criminal investigations, and it is far more limited than a general law enforcement carve-out. It reaches an interception where an investigative or law enforcement officer, or another person acting at the prior direction and under the supervision of such an officer, is a party to the communication or where one of the parties has given prior consent. Even then, the interception is lawful only if it is made to provide evidence of one of roughly two dozen serious offenses the statute lists by name, including murder, kidnapping, rape, child abuse, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in a controlled dangerous substance, and human trafficking, or to respond to a barricade situation where police have probable cause to believe hostages may be involved.
Maryland has no general one-party-consent rule for law enforcement, and nothing in this exception gives private employers, individuals, or AI vendors independent authority to record. A private person is covered only while acting at the direction and under the supervision of an investigating officer in one of those enumerated cases.
How AI Meeting Recorders Interact with Maryland Law
Maryland's all-party consent requirement fundamentally changes the compliance calculus for AI meeting tools compared to one-party consent states.
The Core Legal Problem
In a one-party consent state like Louisiana, an employee activating Otter.ai generally satisfies the statute by being a consenting participant, unless the recording is made for a criminal, tortious, or other injurious purpose (La. R.S. 15:1303(C)(4)). In the Otter.ai litigation, a federal Wiretap Act claim built on that kind of purpose limit survived a motion to dismiss. In Maryland, that employee's consent is necessary but insufficient. Every other participant must also consent before the tool records.
This creates friction that AI meeting tools are not designed to handle. Otter.ai's notetaker joins meetings automatically through calendar integrations. Fireflies.ai's bot enters calls without individual participant approval. Microsoft Copilot processes Teams audio streams without per-participant consent gates. Each of these workflows assumes that one participant's activation is enough. In Maryland, it is not.
The Third-Party Vendor Problem
Beyond participant consent, Maryland's statute raises questions about AI vendors as third parties to the communication. When Otter.ai receives and processes a meeting recording on its servers, it accesses the contents of a wire or electronic communication. Whether that receipt is itself an interception requiring everyone's consent under Section 10-402 is an open question that Maryland courts have not addressed.
Ambriz v. Google deepens this concern. In that case (N.D. Cal., Feb. 10, 2025), a federal judge refused to dismiss California wiretapping claims over Google's contact-center AI. On whether a software vendor is a third-party eavesdropper under California Penal Code 631, the court noted that trial courts are split: some require that the vendor actually use the recordings for its own purposes, while others ask only whether it is capable of doing so. The court applied the broader capability approach first used in Javier v. Assurance IQ (N.D. Cal. 2023). That pleading-stage ruling bound no other court, and in October 2026 the same judge dismissed the remaining plaintiffs' claims on consent and intent grounds (with leave to amend) and sent others to arbitration. If Maryland courts adopted this reasoning, an AI vendor that receives meeting data and has the capability to use it for model training or product improvement could be treated as an interceptor under Section 10-402.
This means that even in a meeting where all participants consent to recording, the AI vendor's access to the communication could constitute a separate interception requiring separate consent. Participants would need to consent not only to the recording itself but to the vendor's receipt and processing of the communication.
The Otter.ai Litigation Connection
The Otter.ai class action (filed in August 2025 as Brewer v. Otter.ai and now consolidated as In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, N.D. Cal., No. 5:25-cv-06911) alleges conduct that raises Maryland questions. In August 2026 the court let the core federal wiretap, California privacy and Illinois biometric claims proceed past a motion to dismiss; the case is now in discovery, and no court has decided whether Otter actually violated the law. The complaint claims Otter's notetaker joined meetings without obtaining consent from non-account holders, transmitted recordings to Otter's servers in real time, retained recordings indefinitely, and used audio data to train AI models.
If conduct like that happened in Maryland without every participant's consent, it could expose the recorder to Maryland criminal and civil liability, and the potential exposure for AI vendors whose tools operate in Maryland without proper consent protocols is large.
The consolidated complaint, which includes the former Walker v. Otter.ai suit, adds a biometric dimension, alleging that Otter captures and stores "voiceprints" during meetings. Maryland does not have a dedicated biometric privacy law like Illinois' BIPA, so in Maryland that allegation would matter mainly as part of the facts of an unconsented recording.
Popular AI Meeting Tools and Maryland Compliance
| Tool | How It Records | Maryland Compliance |
|---|---|---|
| Otter.ai | Joins as meeting participant via calendar integration | Requires consent from ALL participants before activation |
| Fireflies.ai | Joins as bot participant on Zoom, Teams, Meet | Requires ALL participants to consent before bot joins |
| Microsoft Copilot | Processes Teams audio natively | Requires all meeting participants to consent to Copilot transcription |
| Google Gemini | Integrates within Google Meet | Requires all participants to agree before feature activates |
| Zoom AI Companion | Built into Zoom for meeting summaries | Requires consent from every participant; Zoom's built-in notification helps but may not constitute consent |
No AI meeting tool currently offers a consent workflow that automatically satisfies Maryland's all-party standard. Platform-level recording notifications (the pop-up banner in Zoom or Teams saying "This meeting is being recorded") give notice, but no Maryland authority we located treats them as consent, so organizations operating in Maryland should not rely solely on passive notifications.
Criminal Penalties
Section 10-402 classifies willful wiretapping violations as felonies. The penalties include:
- Up to 5 years in prison
- Fines up to $10,000
- Or both
Maryland does not distinguish between first-time and repeat offenders for sentencing purposes under the wiretapping statute. A first violation carries the same maximum penalty as subsequent offenses.
The "willful" element requires only that the interception be made intentionally or purposely. In Deibler v. State, 365 Md. 185 (2001), Maryland's highest court held that an unauthorized interception is done willfully if it is done intentionally, requiring "neither a bad motive nor knowing unlawfulness," and that the element excludes only interceptions arising from inadvertence or simple negligence. For AI meeting tool deployments, this element is satisfied when a user deliberately activates a recording tool, whether or not that user knew the recording was unauthorized. Ignorance of Maryland's all-party consent requirement is generally not a defense.
Suppression of Evidence Under Section 10-405
Maryland law takes the additional step of excluding illegally obtained recordings from court proceedings. Under Section 10-405, no part of the contents of an intercepted communication, and no evidence derived from it, may be received in evidence in any Maryland trial, hearing, or other proceeding if disclosing that information would violate the wiretap subtitle. The procedure for invoking that bar sits in Section 10-408(i), which allows any aggrieved person to move to suppress the contents of an intercepted communication, or evidence derived from it.
If the court finds the interception was unlawful, the evidence is inadmissible. This rule eliminates a potential incentive for unauthorized recording. Even if a recording captures evidence of wrongdoing by another party, the recording cannot be used in court if it was made without all-party consent.
This suppression rule has particular significance for workplace disputes. An employer who records meetings without employee consent to gather evidence of misconduct will find that evidence unusable in any Maryland court proceeding.
Civil Liability Under Section 10-410
Section 10-410 provides civil remedies for victims of unauthorized interception. Any person whose communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of the wiretapping statute may bring a civil action and recover:
- Actual damages but not less than liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater
- Punitive damages
- Reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs
Section 10-410 lists punitive damages without a separate knowledge requirement, and the willfulness that triggers liability in the first place is the same standard the criminal statute uses: an intentional interception, not a knowing violation of the law. An employer that deliberately switches on company-wide AI meeting recording without all-party consent meets that standard even if it believed one participant's approval was enough.
The per-day damages structure creates rapid accumulation. An AI tool that records meetings over a 90-day period generates at least $9,000 in statutory damages per affected participant. For a tool recording meetings across a department of 50 employees, the baseline statutory exposure reaches $450,000 before punitive damages and legal fees.
Employer and Workplace Considerations
Maryland's all-party consent requirement imposes specific obligations on employers that go beyond the technical setup of AI meeting tools.
Mandatory Consent Protocols
Employers in Maryland must establish consent protocols before deploying any AI meeting recording tool. These protocols should include:
Pre-meeting disclosure. Meeting invitations should state that the session will be recorded and transcribed by a specific AI tool. This written notice tells participants what to expect, but it is not a substitute for each participant's consent.
Verbal confirmation at meeting start. The meeting host should announce that recording will occur, identify the tool being used, and ask all participants to confirm their consent. No Maryland statute or appellate decision says that an announcement followed by a pause for objections is enough, so get each participant's express agreement, for example a spoken or typed "yes," before the AI tool starts.
Opt-out mechanism. If any participant objects, recording must not proceed. Whether an employer may require consent as a condition of attending a meeting is a separate employment-law question that the wiretap statute does not answer.
Documentation. Maintain records of when and how consent was obtained for each recorded meeting. If a dispute arises, documentation demonstrates compliance with Section 10-402.
Platform Consent Features
Zoom, Teams, and Google Meet offer built-in recording notifications. In Maryland, employers should configure these features to require active consent rather than passive notification:
- Zoom allows hosts to require participants to click a consent button before the meeting begins recording. Enable this feature for all Maryland-based meetings.
- Microsoft Teams displays a banner notification when recording starts. Consider requiring a verbal confirmation in addition to the banner, as passive notification may not constitute consent under Maryland law.
- Google Meet notifies participants that recording is active. Similar to Teams, supplementing the notification with explicit consent is advisable.
Cross-Border Meeting Dynamics
When a Maryland participant joins a call recorded in another state, it is not settled that Maryland's law applies. Maryland's highest court has said Maryland "may not ordinarily proscribe conduct occurring outside its boundaries," although it can keep such a recording out of Maryland courts (Mustafa v. State, 1991), and the D.C. Court of Appeals has upheld a one-party recording made in D.C. of a person in Maryland. A recording made in Maryland without everyone's consent is squarely covered.
A practical example: a Zoom meeting includes employees in Maryland, Louisiana, and Maine. Louisiana and Maine follow one-party consent. If the recording is made in Maryland without the Maryland participant's consent, it violates Section 10-402. If it is made in Louisiana or Maine, whether Maryland law reaches it is unsettled, and Maryland courts may still refuse to admit it as evidence.
Because courts have not settled which state's law governs a call or meeting that crosses state lines, the safe practice for any organization with employees or clients in Maryland is to get every participant's consent whenever someone in Maryland is on the call.
Employee Rights and Employer Recording
Maryland employees have strong protections against unauthorized employer recording. An employer who willfully records workplace meetings, phone calls, or private conversations without all-party consent commits a felony under Section 10-402. The employee can file a criminal complaint with law enforcement and pursue civil damages under Section 10-410.
This applies to AI monitoring tools as well. An employer who deploys AI-powered call analytics, sentiment analysis, or productivity monitoring that intercepts employee communications without consent faces the same criminal and civil liability as traditional wiretapping.
Recent Legislative Developments
Maryland's all-party consent requirement has faced legislative scrutiny in recent sessions, driven partly by domestic violence advocacy and partly by the practical challenges of modern communication technology.
HB 314 (2025)
Delegate Robin Grammer Jr. sponsored HB 314, which would allow intercepted oral or electronic communications to be received as evidence in court when "the interest of justice will be served." The bill specifically targets situations where victims of domestic violence record their abusers without consent. Under current law, these recordings are inadmissible under Section 10-405. HB 314 received a House committee hearing on February 4, 2025 and did not advance before the 2025 session ended.
SB 661 and HB 802 (2026)
In the 2026 session, SB 661 would have authorized a person to record the commission or attempted commission of certain crimes, created an affirmative defense to a wiretap charge, and allowed such recordings as evidence in criminal cases. It passed the Senate 36-2 and had a House committee hearing on March 31, 2026, but it was not enacted before the session ended. A similar House bill, HB 802, received only a committee hearing.
Status and Impact
None of these bills was enacted, and Maryland's all-party consent requirement remains unchanged. Future versions may take either approach: an evidence-only exception would leave an unauthorized recording a felony, while a bill like SB 661 would have made recording certain crimes lawful.
Baltimore City Public Defender Marguerite Lanaux has argued that all-party consent protects against "fabricated evidence" through AI-generated deepfakes, noting that AI audio manipulation is growing more sophisticated. This argument has given some legislators pause about weakening the consent standard.
Federal Law Interaction
The federal Wiretap Act at 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 sets a one-party consent baseline. Federal law permits recording when one participant consents, provided the recording is not made for criminal or tortious purposes. Federal penalties include up to 5 years in prison and fines up to $250,000.
Maryland's all-party consent requirement is stricter than federal law. When state law imposes a higher standard, state law governs. Complying with Maryland's Section 10-402 automatically satisfies the federal Wiretap Act, but complying with federal law alone does not satisfy Maryland's requirements.
For interstate meetings, the interaction is not straightforward. Maryland's highest court has said Maryland "may not ordinarily proscribe conduct occurring outside its boundaries," although it can keep such a recording out of Maryland courts (Mustafa v. State, 1991), and the D.C. Court of Appeals has upheld a one-party recording made in D.C. of a person in Maryland. Because courts have not settled which state's law governs a call or meeting that crosses state lines, get every participant's consent whenever someone in Maryland is on the call.
Penalties at a Glance
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Consent Standard | All-party consent (Section 10-402) |
| Criminal Penalty | Felony: up to 5 years, $10,000 fine |
| Civil Damages | $100/day or $1,000 minimum, plus punitive damages, attorney's fees (Section 10-410) |
| Evidence Suppression | Illegally obtained recordings inadmissible (Section 10-405) |
| Federal Floor | 18 U.S.C. Section 2511: up to 5 years, $250,000 fine |
| Key Distinction | Applies to wire, oral, AND electronic communications |
| Legislative Activity | HB 314 (2025) and SB 661 and HB 802 (2026) proposed limited exceptions; none enacted |
This article provides general legal information about Maryland's recording laws as they apply to AI meeting tools. Maryland's all-party consent requirement creates one of the most demanding compliance environments in the country for AI meeting technology. Laws evolve, and the legislative efforts to create limited exceptions may change the landscape. Consult an attorney licensed in Maryland for advice specific to your situation.
More Maryland Laws
- Maryland Data Privacy Laws
- Maryland Deepfake Laws
- Maryland Employee Monitoring Laws
- Maryland Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Maryland require consent from every person on a recorded call?
Yes. Under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 10-402, every party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication must consent before recording. A single participant who does not consent makes the recording unlawful. This applies to phone calls, video conferences, and private in-person conversations alike.
Can I use Otter.ai or Fireflies.ai in Maryland?
You can use these tools, but only after obtaining consent from every meeting participant. Maryland's all-party consent requirement means the meeting host must confirm that all participants agree to the AI tool recording and transcribing the session. If any participant declines, the tool cannot be activated. Consult an attorney for advice specific to your situation.
What are the criminal penalties for recording without consent in Maryland?
Willful interception of a communication without all-party consent is a felony in Maryland, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and fines up to $10,000. There is no distinction between first-time and repeat offenses. The same penalties apply to disclosing or using the contents of an illegally intercepted communication.
Can a recording made without consent be used as evidence in Maryland court?
No. Under Section 10-405, recordings obtained in violation of the wiretapping statute are inadmissible in Maryland proceedings, and Section 10-408(i) lets an aggrieved person move to suppress the recording and any evidence derived from it. Bills to create limited exceptions for recordings of crimes such as domestic violence failed in the 2025 and 2026 sessions.
Does Maryland's all-party consent law apply to virtual meetings with out-of-state participants?
It may. A recording made in Maryland without every participant's consent violates Section 10-402. For a recording made in another state, the answer is unsettled: Maryland's highest court has said Maryland ordinarily cannot punish conduct outside its borders, although it can keep such a recording out of Maryland courts, and courts have not settled which state's law governs a multistate call. The safe practice is to get every participant's consent whenever someone in Maryland is on the call. Consult an attorney for advice specific to your situation.
Updates
Corrected the source link for La. R.S. 15:1303, which pointed to a different Louisiana statute.
Corrected the statement that no Maryland appellate decision recognizes implied consent (Boston v. State, 2017, did), and noted that one-party consent in Louisiana does not cover a recording made for a criminal, tortious or injurious purpose.
We corrected statements that Maryland law automatically reaches recordings made in other states (Maryland's highest court has said otherwise), removed an unsupported claim that an announcement and a pause satisfy all-party consent, added the statute's private-conversation and criminal-or-tortious-purpose limits, updated the failed 2025 and 2026 bills to their final status, updated the Otter.ai lawsuit to its August 2026 ruling, and corrected the description of Ambriz v. Google.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the description of Maryland's willfulness standard (no knowledge of illegality is required), narrowed the law enforcement exception to the serious offenses Section 10-402(c)(2) actually lists, and attributed the motion to suppress to Section 10-408(i) rather than Section 10-405.
Session-qualified the HB 314 link so it resolves to the correct 2025 bill.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article
§ 10-402In forcecited in 26 of our articles
§10–402. (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this subtitle it is unlawful for any person to: (1) Willfully intercept, endeavor to intercept, or procure any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (2) Willfully 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 subtitle; or (3) Willfully 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 subtitle. (b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 12 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Applying section 10-402, Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. (1995) held that liability under the Maryland Wiretap Act requires proof the defendant acted willfully, an intentional violation or reckless disregard of a known legal duty; an employee's failure to check for a court order was only a jury factor on willfulness.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 1995, 104 Md. App. 1)✓Police hid a tape recorder on an officer's headquarters phone line with a phone company employee's help and no court order; the court held a section 10-402(a) claim requires proof of willful interception, and failing to ask about a court order went only to willfulness.
- Maryland Attorney General Opinion 110OAG60 (Maryland Attorney General Reports 2025)“…or wire communications without the consent of all parties. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402(a). However, the Wiretap Act contains e…”
- Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A. (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1999, 191 F.3d 463)“…1992); Me.Rev.Stat. Ann. tit. 15, §§ 710, 711 (West 1998); Md.Code Ann., Cts & Jud. Proc. § 10-402 (1998); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 272,…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026), Maryland Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Maryland Audio Recording Laws: Two-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
§ 10-410In forcecited in 11 of our articles
§10–410. (a) Any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this subtitle shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use the communications, and be entitled to recover from any person: (1) Actual damages but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher; (2) Punitive damages; and (3) A reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (b) A good faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this subtitle or under any other law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. (1995) held that punitive damages under section 10-410(a) require malice, meaning a knowing and deliberate violation of the Maryland Wiretap Act, and that a reckless disregard of a known legal duty does not supply it. It also rejected reputational damages not caused by the interception itself.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Fearnow v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 1995, 104 Md. App. 1)✓A police chief had an officer's headquarters phone extension tapped with a telephone technician's help; the court held liability under section 10-410 requires proof the technician acted wilfully, a jury question, and that punitive damages require a showing of malice.
- Think Tank, Inc. v. ITegrity, Inc. (District Court, D. Maryland 2023)“…against Bawa and [Tegrity under the Maryland Wiretap Act, Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-410 (West 2022), also related to Bawa’s use…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Maryland Dashcam Laws: Legality, Audio Rules, and Evidence Use (2026), Maryland Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Audio, and Privacy (2026), Maryland Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent (2026)
§ 10-408In force
§10–408. (a) (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 the application. Each application shall include the following information: (i) The identity of the investigative or law enforcement officer making the application, and the officer authorizing the application; (ii) 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: 1. Details as to the particular offense that has been, is being, or is about to be committed; 2. Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, 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.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mgaleg.maryland.gov
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2016
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Fauntleroy (District Court, D. Maryland 2011, 800 F. Supp. 2d 676)“…s state-law exhaustion requirements, which are set forth in Md.Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-408, are identical. United States v.…”
- United States v. Harris (District Court, D. Maryland 2010, 719 F. Supp. 2d 616)“…applicant failed to comply with the oath requirement under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-408 (a)(l). That request will be denied. Th…”
- United States v. Baraka Chauka (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2016, 647 F. App'x 270)“…before applying for a wiretap. Compare Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. §§ 10-408(a)(1)(iii), (c)(1)(iii)…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 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 Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Calls (2026), Maryland School Recording Laws: Students, Teachers, and Campus Rules (2026), Maryland Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Can I Record My Boss Harassing Me? State-by-State Legal Guide (2026), Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?
Sources and References
- Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 10-402 - Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- Maryland Department of IT - Communication Recordings Policy(doit.maryland.gov).gov
- Maryland General Assembly - HB 314 (2026 Session)(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- In re Otter.AI Privacy Litigation, N.D. Cal., No. 5:25-cv-06911 (docket; formerly Brewer v. Otter.ai)(courtlistener.com)
- Ambriz v. Google - AI Wiretapping Ruling (Courthouse News, 2025)(courthousenews.com)
- Maryland Recording Consent and Evidence Law Reform (WYPR, 2025)(wypr.org)
- Maryland Recording Guide - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press(rcfp.org)
- AI Meeting Assistants Legal Risks (Fisher Phillips, 2025)(fisherphillips.com)
- Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. Section 10-408(i) - Motion to Suppress Intercepted Communications(mgaleg.maryland.gov)
- Deibler v. State, 365 Md. 185 (2001) - Meaning of "Willfully" Under the Maryland Wiretap Act(courtlistener.com)
- 110 Op. Att'y Gen. 40 (Md. 2025) (consent under the Wiretap Act may be express or implied; discussing Boston v. State, 235 Md. App. 134 (2017))(courtlistener.com)
- La. R.S. 15:1303 (Louisiana one-party exception and its criminal or tortious purpose limit)(legis.la.gov).gov