Is It Illegal to Record Someone Without Their Permission?

The Short Answer

Recording someone without their permission is legal in most of the United States, with conditions. Under federal law and in 37 states plus Washington D.C., you can record a conversation as long as you are a participant. This is called one-party consent: your own consent to record is enough.

In 13 states, recording without everyone's permission is illegal. These all-party consent states (often called "two-party consent" states) require every person in the conversation to agree before anyone hits record. California, Florida, and Pennsylvania are the most well-known examples.

One thing is illegal everywhere: recording a conversation you are not part of. That is eavesdropping, and it violates both 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (the federal wiretap statute) and every state's wiretapping law.

Federal Recording Law: The Baseline

The Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), originally passed as Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, sets the floor for recording consent in the United States. The law prohibits intentionally intercepting any wire, oral, or electronic communication.

The critical exception: Section 2511(2)(d) provides that it is not unlawful for a person to intercept a communication where "such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception." There is one caveat: the recording cannot be made "for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act."

This means that under federal law, if you are part of a conversation, you can record it. You do not need to tell the other person. You do not need their permission. Your participation is your consent, and one party's consent is all the federal statute requires.

Federal law only sets a minimum standard. States are free to impose stricter requirements, and 13 of them do. When state law is stricter than federal law, the state law controls within that state's borders.

One-Party Consent vs. Two-Party Consent

One-party consent means a person who is part of the conversation can record it without telling anyone else. The "one party" is the person doing the recording. If you are in the room or on the phone, your own knowledge that the recording is happening satisfies the consent requirement.

Two-party consent (more accurately called all-party consent) means every person in the conversation must know about and agree to the recording before it starts. The name "two-party" is misleading because it applies to conversations with any number of participants. If five people are on a conference call in a two-party consent state, all five must agree.

The practical difference is significant. In a one-party consent state like Texas or New York, you can turn on a voice recorder in your pocket during a meeting without saying a word about it. In a two-party consent state like California or Massachusetts, that same action is a crime that can result in fines, jail time, and a civil lawsuit.

The map below shows which framework each state follows. Click any state for a detailed breakdown of its recording laws, including specific statutes, penalties, and exceptions.

Recording Consent Laws by State

As of 2026, 37 states and the District of Columbia follow one-party consent. Thirteen states require all-party consent. Each state's law has its own statute, penalties, and exceptions.

For a deeper comparison of these two groups, see the complete one-party consent guide and the complete two-party consent guide.

Penalties for Recording Someone Illegally

Illegally recording a conversation can trigger both criminal prosecution and civil liability. The consequences depend on whether federal or state law applies, and which state you are in.

Federal Penalties

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2511, willfully intercepting a communication carries up to 5 years in federal prison and fines up to $250,000 for individuals ($500,000 for organizations). The person whose communication was intercepted can also file a civil lawsuit under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 for actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees.

State Penalties

State penalties vary widely:

Beyond criminal penalties, illegally recorded conversations are typically inadmissible as evidence in court. A recording made in violation of wiretapping laws cannot be used in civil or criminal proceedings, which means an illegal recording can actually hurt the person who made it.

When You Can Record Without Any Consent

Several situations exist where recording consent requirements do not apply or are significantly relaxed.

Public Spaces

Recording laws generally protect private conversations where participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy (the standard established by the Supreme Court in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 1967). In genuinely public settings where conversations can be overheard by passersby, there is typically no expectation of privacy and recording laws do not apply.

That said, the line is not always clear. A conversation at a quiet corner table in a restaurant could carry a reasonable expectation of privacy even though the restaurant is a public place. Courts evaluate the specific circumstances, not just the location category.

Law Enforcement

Federal law provides explicit exceptions for law enforcement under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c). Officers acting under color of law may intercept communications when they are a party to the communication or when another party has given prior consent. Wiretap orders under 18 U.S.C. § 2518 allow non-consensual interception with judicial approval.

Emergency Situations

Communications providers may disclose communications without consent when they believe in good faith that an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury requires immediate disclosure. Several states also have emergency exceptions in their own wiretapping statutes.

Recording Phone Calls Across State Lines

Interstate phone calls create a legal gray area. If you are in New York (one-party consent) recording a call with someone in California (all-party consent), which state's law applies?

Courts have not reached a uniform answer. Some courts apply the law of the state where the recording device is located. Others apply the law of the state where the person being recorded is located. Still others apply the stricter of the two laws.

The safest practice for interstate calls: follow the stricter state's law. If either party is in a two-party consent state, inform everyone on the call and get consent. This approach eliminates the legal risk entirely, regardless of how a court might rule on the jurisdictional question.

For international calls, the situation is even more complex. The other country's recording laws may also apply. See our world recording laws guide for country-by-country rules.

Recording at Work

Workplace recording involves both wiretapping law and employment law. The legality depends on who is recording, what is being recorded, and where the workplace is located.

In one-party consent states, employees can generally record conversations they participate in without telling coworkers or managers. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled that blanket employer bans on recording can violate employees' rights under the National Labor Relations Act when the recording relates to protected concerted activity (organizing, discussing wages, documenting unsafe conditions).

In two-party consent states, secretly recording a workplace conversation is a crime, and the fact that it happened at work provides no exception. Employers in these states can and do terminate employees who record without consent, with the termination backed by both company policy and criminal law.

Employer surveillance of employees (as opposed to employee self-recording) faces additional restrictions. Most states require notice before monitoring workplace communications. Audio monitoring of employees faces stricter scrutiny than video surveillance in virtually every jurisdiction.

Recording Police and Government Officials

The right to record police officers performing their duties in public is well-established in the United States. The First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals have all recognized this right. The ACLU and the Department of Justice have both affirmed that citizens have a constitutional right to record police activity in public.

This right applies even in two-party consent states. Courts have held that police officers performing public duties do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their on-duty interactions with the public. The recording must be done openly and cannot interfere with the officer's performance of their duties.

Obstructing an officer is still illegal. Standing at a safe distance and recording is protected. Getting in the way of an arrest or investigation is not, regardless of whether you are recording.

Recent and Proposed Changes (2025-2026)

Recording consent laws remain an active area of state legislation. Several states have proposed changes in recent sessions:

New York introduced Senate Bill S5077 in 2025, which would change the state from one-party to all-party consent by amending the definition of wiretapping to require consent from all persons in a conversation. A companion bill (S5070) would require anyone recording where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy to announce the recording device. Both bills remain in committee as of early 2026, and New York continues to operate as a one-party consent state.

Maryland legislators introduced several bills during the 2025 session that would modify the state's existing all-party consent framework, including expanding exceptions for fair housing investigations and broadening the circumstances under which recordings are admissible as evidence.

No state has changed its fundamental consent framework (one-party to all-party or vice versa) since Illinois reformed its eavesdropping statute in 2014 after the state Supreme Court struck down the previous version as unconstitutional.