Indiana
Indiana Employee Monitoring Laws (2026): Tracking, GPS & More

Indiana has no state statute requiring employers to give notice before monitoring phone, email, internet, or GPS activity, but it does have one of the country's few laws squarely banning a specific monitoring method: requiring an employee to accept an implanted tracking device.
This guide is part of our Employee Monitoring Laws by State series, which covers electronic-monitoring notice duties, social-media-password protections, and workplace video and GPS surveillance limits nationwide.
Information last verified on 2026-07-09. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Does Indiana require employers to give notice before monitoring employees?
No. Indiana has not adopted a general electronic-monitoring notice statute of the kind Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and Maine use, each of which requires written or posted notice before an employer monitors phone, email, or internet activity. Indiana law reviewers have documented at least one legislative attempt in this direction: a proposed Notice of Electronic Monitoring Act, which would have required employers to notify employees before monitoring email or other electronic communications, was pulled from further consideration after employer-side opposition in committee.
Absent a state statute, Indiana employers monitoring their own systems operate under the federal baseline: the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510-2523, prohibits intercepting communications without consent (), but the business-extension exemption in Section 2510(5)(a) excludes employer-provided communications equipment from the Act's definition of an interception device when it is used in the ordinary course of business, subject to the limits federal courts have placed on continued monitoring once a call is identified as personal. No Indiana statute displaces or expands that federal rule for general workplace monitoring.
Recording employee calls and conversations in Indiana
Indiana is a one-party consent state. Its wiretap chapter, Ind. Code Article 35-33.5, read together with the definitions in Ind. Code Article 31.5, Chapter 2, makes it unlawful to intentionally record or acquire the contents of a wire, electronic, or certain oral communications without the consent of at least one party, generally a Level 5 felony. Because a participant to a call is a sender or receiver under the statute, an employer that is itself on the call, or that has an employee's acknowledged consent to a monitoring policy, satisfies the one-party requirement for business communications.

This cluster addresses only the employment overlay; the full one-party consent framework, including how it applies to phone calls versus in-person conversations and the applicable penalties, is covered in depth on our Indiana Recording Laws guide and is not repeated here.
Indiana's ban on mandatory employee microchipping
Indiana has a monitoring-specific statute most states lack. Ind. Code Sections 22-5-8-1 through 22-5-8-4, enacted by House Bill 1143 in the 2020 session as P.L.20-2020 and effective July 1, 2020, prohibit an employer from requiring a job candidate or employee to have a device implanted, injected, ingested, inhaled, or otherwise incorporated into their body as a condition of employment, and separately prohibit discriminating against an employee who declines. The statute defines "device" broadly, covering acoustic, optical, mechanical, electronic, medical, or molecular devices, language written to reach any future tracking or identification technology, not just the rice-grain-sized RFID microchips that prompted the bill. An employer found in violation can be enjoined from further violations and ordered to pay actual damages, costs, and attorney's fees.
The law does not ban voluntary implantation; it bans making implantation, in any form, a condition of getting or keeping a job. It is a useful marker of how Indiana's legislature has approached employee-monitoring technology: rather than a general notice duty, it has targeted specific methods it considered categorically unacceptable.
GPS and vehicle tracking in Indiana
, substantially amended effective July 1, 2023, makes it a Class A misdemeanor, escalating to a Level 6 felony where the person has certain prior convictions or the target has a protective order, to knowingly or intentionally place a tracking device on an individual or on property owned or used by that individual without their knowledge or consent. The statute lists several exceptions, including one for a person who places a tracking device on property in which they have an ownership or contractual interest, unless the person is subject to a protective order and the property is likely to be used by the protected party.
Because an employer typically holds title to, or a lease on, its own fleet vehicles, that ownership exception will generally cover routine GPS tracking of a company vehicle. No Indiana appellate decision has yet applied this exception to an employer-employee tracking dispute, so employers should treat the exception as the likely, but not judicially confirmed, basis for lawful fleet tracking, and written notice to drivers remains the more defensible practice regardless of the exception's scope. For the state's full tracking-device framework, see our Indiana GPS Tracking Laws guide.
Video cameras and workplace privacy in Indiana
Indiana's voyeurism statute, , criminalizes secretly watching or recording a person in a place where they can reasonably be expected to disrobe, including restrooms, showers, baths, and dressing rooms. Without a camera or recording device, the offense is a Class B misdemeanor; once a camera or video recording device is involved, it becomes a Level 6 felony, and a prior conviction under the same section or distribution of the images enhances the exposure further. House Bill 1047, effective July 1, 2024, expanded the statute's definition of prohibited conduct to reach use of a concealed camera with the intent of capturing an intimate image. As in most states, this statute makes camera placement in workplace restrooms, locker rooms, and changing areas a criminal matter independent of any employer monitoring policy.

Social media passwords and biometric monitoring in Indiana
Indiana's status on social-media-password protection is unsettled in the secondary literature, but the weight of the evidence indicates Indiana has not enacted one. The National Conference of State Legislatures' 50-state tracker, which lists 27 states with this type of protection, does not include Indiana, and a widely cited 50-state employment-law survey confirms no such Indiana statute exists. Several compliance blogs cite specific Indiana Code sections for a password-protection law, but those citations point to different, inconsistent section numbers and could not be confirmed against the Indiana Code; readers should not rely on them. Absent a verified statute, an Indiana employer asking about personal social media use is not violating a state-specific password law, though a request that actually secures unauthorized account access can still raise exposure under the federal Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 2701.
Indiana also has no biometric-privacy statute comparable to Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14. An Indiana employer's fingerprint or facial-recognition time clock is not subject to a dedicated written-consent-and-retention regime or the kind of statutory private right of action Illinois employers face; general common-law privacy principles apply instead.
Disclaimer
This article provides general legal information about Indiana employee monitoring law as verified on 2026-07-09. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Readers with a specific workplace monitoring dispute should consult a lawyer licensed in Indiana.
Related articles
- Employee Monitoring Laws by State: the complete hub
- Indiana Recording Laws
- Indiana GPS Tracking Laws
- Illinois Employee Monitoring Laws

Last updated: 2026-07-09. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of 2026-07-09.
More Indiana Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Does my employer have to tell me if they are monitoring my work email in Indiana?
No. Indiana has no state law requiring advance notice of email or internet monitoring. A proposed Notice of Electronic Monitoring Act did not pass, so Indiana employers rely on the federal business-extension exemption in 18 U.S.C. Section 2510(5)(a), which excludes employer-provided communications equipment used in the ordinary course of business from the Wiretap Act's definition of an interception device, and, typically, an acknowledged company policy.
Can my employer record my phone calls at work in Indiana?
Generally yes, if the employer is a party to the call or the employee has acknowledged a monitoring policy, because Indiana's wiretap chapter, Ind. Code Article 35-33.5, only requires one party's consent.
Can my employer require me to get a microchip implant as a condition of my job in Indiana?
No. Ind. Code Sections 22-5-8-1 to 22-5-8-4 prohibit an employer from requiring a candidate or employee to accept an implanted, injected, ingested, or inhaled device as a condition of employment, and bar retaliation against an employee who declines.
Can my employer track a company vehicle I drive with GPS in Indiana?
Likely yes, if the employer owns or leases the vehicle. Ind. Code Section 35-46-8.5-1 generally prohibits placing a tracking device on property someone uses without consent, but exempts a person with an ownership or contractual interest in that property, which typically covers an employer's own fleet vehicle, though no Indiana case has confirmed this in an employment dispute.
Can my employer put a camera in the locker room or restroom in Indiana?
No. Ind. Code Section 35-45-4-5 makes secretly recording someone in a restroom, shower, or changing area a Level 6 felony once a camera or recording device is used, regardless of the employer's stated purpose.
Can my employer ask for my personal social media password in Indiana?
There is no confirmed Indiana statute banning the request. Indiana does not appear on the National Conference of State Legislatures' list of 27 states with a social-media-password protection law, though an employer that actually accesses the account without authorization can face federal exposure under the Stored Communications Act.
Does Indiana have a biometric privacy law like Illinois' BIPA?
No. Indiana has not enacted a biometric-privacy statute, so an employer's fingerprint or facial-recognition time clock in Indiana is not subject to the written-consent, retention-schedule, and private-right-of-action framework that applies in Illinois under 740 ILCS 14.
Updates
Corrected the enactment date of Indiana's employee-microchipping ban (Ind. Code 22-5-8-1 to 22-5-8-4): it was enacted in the 2020 legislative session and took effect July 1, 2020, not 2021.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Re-anchored the employer ordinary-course monitoring doctrine to the correct statute, 18 U.S.C. 2510(5)(a)'s business-extension exemption, rather than the service-provider exception at 2511(2)(a)(i), including a mislabeled Sources entry.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on 4 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 120 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527) · Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425) · Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Kentucky Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 397 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) · as of 2026-08-12 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511) · United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297) · Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use, Alabama Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and HIPAA Rules
Indiana Code, TITLE 35. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
§ 35-45-4-5Voyeurism; public voyeurism; aerial voyeurismIn forcecited in 14 of our articles
Sec. 5. (a) The following definitions apply throughout this section: (1) "Camera" means a camera, a video camera, a device that captures a digital image, or any other type of video recording device. (2) "Peep" means: (A) any looking of a clandestine, surreptitious, prying, or secretive nature; or (B) using a concealed camera with the intent of capturing an intimate image (as defined by IC 34-21.5-2-1). (3) "Private area" means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, or buttocks of an individual. (b) A person: (1) who knowingly or intentionally: (A) peeps; or (B) goes upon the land of another with the intent to peep; into an occupied dwelling of another person; or (2) who knowingly or intentionally peeps in or into an area where an occupant of the area reasonably can be expected to disrobe or is actually expected to disrobe, including: (A) restrooms; (B) baths; (C) showers; and (D) dressing rooms; without the consent of the other person, commits voyeurism, a Class B misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at iga.in.gov
Cited in 19 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: Casady v. State (Indiana Court of Appeals 2010, 934 N.E.2d 1181) · Steven M. Sandleben v. State of Indiana (Indiana Court of Appeals 2014, 22 N.E.3d 782) · David Delagrange v. State of Indiana (Indiana Court of Appeals 2013, 981 N.E.2d 1227)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Indiana Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2025, Indiana Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Indiana Workplace Recording Laws: Employee Rights and Employer Rules
§ 35-46-8.5-1Unlawful photography, surveillance, and tracking on private propertyIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
Sec. 1. (a) This section does not apply to any of the following: (1) Electronic or video toll collection facilities or activities authorized under any of the following: (A) IC 8-15-2. (B) IC 8-15-3. (C) IC 8-15.5. (D) IC 8-15.7. (E) IC 8-16. (F) IC 9-21-3.5. (2) A law enforcement officer who has obtained: (A) a search warrant; or (B) the consent of the owner of private property; to place a camera, electronic surveillance equipment, or tracking device on the private property, with respect to the placement of a camera, electronic surveillance equipment, or tracking device. (3) A law enforcement officer who uses a law enforcement recording device in performance of the officer's duties, with respect to the use of the law enforcement recording device. (4) A person who uses a tracking device to determine the location of a family member (as defined in IC 35-44.1-3-1), unless the person is the subject of a protective order obtained by the family member.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at iga.in.gov
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Ind. Code Sections 22-5-8-1 to 22-5-8-4, prohibition on employer-mandated device implantation(iga.in.gov).gov
- Ind. Code Section 35-46-8.5-1, Unlawful Photography, Surveillance, and Tracking on Private Property(iga.in.gov).gov
- Ind. Code Section 35-45-4-5, Voyeurism; public voyeurism; aerial voyeurism(iga.in.gov).gov
- Ind. Code Article 35-33.5, wiretapping and electronic surveillance(iga.in.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2510, Definitions (business-extension exemption for employer-provided equipment used in the ordinary course of business at (5)(a)(i))(uscode.house.gov).gov
- Workplace Privacy Report (Littler), Indiana Prohibits Employers from Mandating Device Implantations for Employees (2021)(workplaceprivacyreport.com)
- NCSL, Privacy of Employee and Student Social Media Accounts (50-state tracker)(ncsl.org)
- Indiana Law Journal, The Private Workplace and the Proposed "Notice of Electronic Monitoring Act": Is "Notice" Enough?(repository.law.indiana.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 – Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited(uscode.house.gov).gov