Learn about hidden camera audio and video surveillance laws by state. Understand when recording someone without their permission is illegal. Explore more now! 11 min read updated on September 04, 2024
Understanding Video Surveillance Laws by State: Is It Illegal to Record Without Permission?
In an age where cameras and recording devices are an everyday part of life, it is crucial to understand surveillance laws to avoid violating them. Before you hit record on your camera phone or install security cameras in your home or business, you must be up-to-date on surveillance laws. Violating surveillance laws has harsh consequences, including fines, penalties, and even jail time.
Several federal laws govern the use of surveillance, including, but not limited to, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, the USA Patriot Act of 2001, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) of 1994, and the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act of 2008 (FISA Amendments Act). Laws safeguard people by restricting the timing and manner in which they can be lawfully surveilled.
Additionally, individuals are also protected by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which safeguards privacy rights by governing how government agents may surveil people's effects, including their electronic devices.
State regulations generally protect people’s reasonable expectation of privacy. However, each state has its own rules, so it is essential to consult your jurisdiction for specific guidance.
Federal law and some states follow the one-party consent rule. Federal law 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) permits recording phone calls or in-person conversations with the consent of at least one person involved. If you or another adult consented to the recording, you can keep using those audio-equipped cameras. Some states have more stringent requirements that must be followed, such as the all-party consent rule.
With certain exceptions explained below, the following states and the District of Columbia allow the recording of conversations without the knowledge of all parties to the conversation if at least one party in the conversation consents.. This law is called a “one-party consent” statute.
Alabama law (Ala. Code,13A-11-30 (1) & 13A-11-31) states that it is illegal to record or even to overhear any conversation through “any device” without at least one person consenting to the recording who is engaged in the conversation.
Alaska (Alaska Stat., 42.20.310) has similar laws in effect and makes it a misdemeanor.
Arizona law (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann..13-3005 (A)(1) & (2)) makes it a class 5 felony to intercept a communication to which they are not a party or to aid someone else in doing so without the consent of at least one party. Arizona permits the “subscriber” (the person whose name is on the telephone bill) to intercept calls without being a party to the conversation and without the consent of the parties to the call.
Arkansas law (Ark. Code Ann.,5-80-120(a)) makes it illegal to intercept or record any conversation, whether oral, wire, or phone unless the person recording is part of the conversation or has given permission.
Colorado law (Colo. Rev. Stat., 18-9-303(1)) makes it a felony to record or intercept a phone or electronic communication without getting the consent of at least one person in the conversation. News media personnel may use approved tools and various equipment to investigate newsworthy events.
Connecticut law (C.G.S.A. 53a-187,-89; C.G.S.A. 52-570d) is a “mixed” state as recordings are allowed in some circumstances but not others. Connecticut requires at least one party's consent to record an in-person conversation . For telephonic conversations, consent of all parties is required to avoid potential civil liability, though criminal penalties do not apply if at least one party has consented to the recording.
Delaware law (Del. Code. Ann. tit. 11, § 1335(a)(4) & 11,2402(c)(4), U.S. v. Vespe , 389 F. Supp. 1359 (1975)) has conflicting rules about whether it is legal or not to record another person’s conversation with or without the consent of one party. Section 1335 requires all-party consent. Section 2402 allows for one-party consent, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of a criminal act. U.S. v. Vespe holds that an individual has the right to record their own conversations.
The District of Columbia’s laws (D.C. Code. Ann. 23-542(b)(3)) prevent anyone who pretends to be an agent of the law from intercepting an oral communication or wire.
Georgia law (Ga. Code Ann. 16-11-62 & 16-11-66(a)) makes it a felony to record a private conversation in a private place. Recording is allowed if one of the parties is knowledgeable or if one party has given consent.
Hawaii law (Haw. Rev. Stat.803-42(b)(3)(A)) says recording a conversation is legal if one person in the conversation knows about the recording or has given consent.
Idaho law (Idaho Code 18-6702(d)) says it is legal to intercept a communication as long as those involved have approved of it.
Indiana law (Ind. Code Ann. 35-33.5-1-5(2)) states that only the sender or receiver may record a conversation or acquire the contents of it.
Iowa law (Iowa Code Ann.808B.2(2)(c)) says that a listener or sender of the information must be openly present and a participant of the conversation, but it does not require the other party to be aware of it.
Kansas law (Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-4002(a)(1)) prohibits eavesdropping in conversations without having obtained consent of the user of the device. The highest court in Kansas permits one-party consent, and it may not be challenged in court.
Kentucky law (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 526.010 & 526.020) states that eavesdropping is illegal if a device of any type is used. It is considered a Class D felony.
Louisiana law (La. Rev. Stat. 15:1303(b)(4)) states that any conversation can be recorded as long as the individual is a party to it or if consent has been given.
Maine law (Ma. Rev. Stat. 15:1303(b)(4)) makes it a Class C crime to hear, record, or help another person to hear a wire of oral communication with the use of a device.
Michigan law (Mich. Comp. Laws An. 750.539(c); Sullivan v. Gray , 117 Mich App. 476) appears to require all-party consent, but Sullivan v. Gray interpreted the statute as only applying to third-party intercepts of a conversation. A participant in the conversation does have the right to record it.
Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. Ann 626A.02 subd. 2(d)) makes it legal to record or intercept a communication as long as the person is a party in the conversation or has given consent.
Mississippi law (Miss. Code Ann. 41-29-531(e)) states that a communication cannot be intercepted or recorded unless the person is a party to the conversation or has given consent.
Missouri law (Mo. Ann. Stat. 542.402(2)(3)) states that a party to the communication, or if they have given consent, can record it and disclose the contents.
Nebraska law (Neb. Rev. Stat. 86-290(2)(c)) requires consent or that the individual recording it be a party to the conversation.
Nevada law (Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620, 200.650, Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 114 Nev. 1176 (1998)) is a mixed state. For private in-person communications, there is a one-party consent rule. For telephonic communications, there is an all-party consent rule.
New Jersey law (N.J. Rev. Stat. §2A:156A-4(d)) makes it illegal to intercept any communication, with the exception that the person must be a party to the conversation or give consent.
New Mexico law (N.M. Stat. Ann 30-12-1(C) & (E)) states that consent of the party involved must be obtained before interfering with the communication, which has been interpreted as consent to sending the information.
New York law (N.Y. Penal Law,250.00(1) & 250.05) makes it illegal to wiretap without the consent of one person involved in the conversation. This also applies to mobile phones.
North Carolina law (N.C.Gen Stat.15A-287(a)) says that it is a Class H felony to intercept communications without having the consent of at least one person involved in the communication. It is also illegal to hire someone else to do it.
North Dakota law (N.D. Gen Stat.15A-287(a)) states it is a Class C felony to intercept a communication without the consent of at least one of the parties.
Ohio law (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2933.52(B)(4)) states that recording or intercepting a conversation is not a crime if one person involved gives consent.
Oklahoma law (Okla.Stat. Ann. tit. 13.176.2, 13.176.4) states that it is not a crime when consent has been given or when the one recording is involved in the conversation.
Oregon law (Or. Rev. Stat. 165.540, 165.543) is a mixed state. For electronic and telephonic communications, there is a one-party consent rule. For in-person communications, there is an all-person consent rule.
Rhode Island law (R.I. Gen. Laws 11-35-21(c)(3)) states that it is illegal to intercept or record a conversation unless one party provides consent.
South Carolina law (S.C. Code Ann. 17-30-15, 17-30-30) requires one-party consent to record electronic and in-person communications.
South Dakota law (S.D. Codified Laws Ann. 23A-35A-20(1)) states that one person may record a conversation if they are present, and consent is not needed. Consent is not necessary for non-electronic communications where privacy may not be expected.
Tennessee law (Tenn. Code Ann. 39-13-601(b)(5)) states that a person who is a party to the conversation can record it if they have given consent. A non-electronic conversation may be recorded if privacy cannot be expected.
Texas law (Tex. Penal Code Ann. §16.02(c)(4)(A)&(B)) states that recording may occur by anyone involved in the conversation or where consent has been granted by one person.
Utah law (Utah Code Ann. §§77-23a-4(7)(b)) states that a conversation can be recorded if it is conducted by someone in the conversation or when consent is given by one participant. Consent is not required for oral communications where privacy cannot be expected.
Vermont law has no statutes or case law directly on point. Vermont’s highest court held that using electronic monitoring of conversations in someone’s home is an illegal invasion of privacy.
Virginia law (Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-62.) states that a participant in a conversation may record it, or if one member of the party gives consent.
West Virginia law (W. Va. Code §62-1D-3(e)) says that recording is legal, as is disclosing the information when they are a participant or have been given permission from one participant.
Wisconsin law (Wis. Stat Ann. §§968.31(c) &885.365(1)) states that a party in the conversation may record it, or when permission has been given by one party. However, a recording may not be used as evidence in a civil trial unless the party it will be used against was informed the conversation would be recorded and may be used as evidence in court.
Wyoming law (Wyo. Stat. §7-3-702(b)(iv)) says it is legal for one member of the conversation to record or when one party gives consent.