Recording consent: one-party and all-party
Federal law lets a party to a conversation record it. Several states require more. Some require every party’s consent, some only for phone calls or only for in-person talks, and some apply only to private or secret recording.
At a glance
- Federal rule
- One-party consent for persons not acting under color of law, unless the purpose is a criminal or tortious act (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d))
- Federal penalty
- Unlawful interception: fine under Title 18, up to 5 years in prison, or both (2511(4)(a))
- All-party states
- California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington
- Mixed or unsettled
- Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon
- Key point
- The stricter state rule can apply even though federal law allows the recording
The federal rule
The federal wiretap chapter generally prohibits intercepting wire, oral, or electronic communications. It has consent exceptions. For a private person, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) says it is not unlawful 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 unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State.”
A similar exception covers a person acting under color of law, such as a police officer, without the criminal or tortious purpose clause (2511(2)(c)).
Federal law sets a floor. States may require more, and many investigators work under a state rule that is stricter than the federal one.
States that require all-party consent
This table lists states whose statutes require the consent or knowledge of all parties in at least some situations. It is not a survey of every state. Each statute has its own definitions and exceptions, and courts in each state interpret them.
| State | Statute | What the text requires |
|---|---|---|
| California | Penal Code 632 | Consent of all parties to record a confidential communication, in person or by phone. A communication is not confidential where the parties may reasonably expect it may be overheard or recorded. |
| Connecticut | Gen. Stat. 52-570d; 53a-187 | Mixed. Recording a private telephone call requires all parties’ prior consent (in writing or at the start of the recording), a recorded verbal notice at the start, or a warning tone (civil action under 52-570d). The criminal definitions in 53a-187 use one-party consent. |
| Delaware | 11 Del. C. 1335(a)(4); 11 Del. C. 2402(c)(4) | Conflicting statutes. Section 1335(a)(4) bars intercepting a private message or conversation without all parties’ consent. Section 2402(c)(4) allows interception by a party or with one party’s prior consent. |
| Florida | Stat. 934.03(2)(d) | All parties’ prior consent. An oral communication is covered only where the speaker has a justified expectation that it is not subject to interception (934.02(2)). |
| Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(2) | Consent of all other parties for a party to record a private conversation in a surreptitious manner, in person or by wire. |
| Maryland | Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402(c)(3) | A party may intercept only where all parties have given prior consent. |
| Massachusetts | G.L. c. 272, s. 99 | Interception means to secretly hear or secretly record, by anyone not given prior authority by all parties. |
| Michigan | MCL 750.539c | Unsettled. The text requires all parties’ consent to eavesdrop on a private conversation, but the definition in 750.539a refers to the private discourse “of others”. The Court of Appeals held in Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982) that this language excludes participant recording. The Michigan Supreme Court has not ruled on the question. |
| Montana | MCA 45-8-213 | Knowledge of all parties to record a conversation with a hidden device. Does not apply to persons given warning; if one person gives the warning, either party may record. |
| Nevada | NRS 200.620; 200.650 | Mixed. A wire communication may be intercepted only with one party’s consent and an emergency, followed by court ratification. In-person private conversations may be recorded with one participant’s authorization. |
| New Hampshire | RSA 570-A:2 | Consent of all parties to the communication. |
| Oregon | ORS 165.540 | Mixed. Telecommunications need the consent of at least one participant. In-person conversations need all participants to be specifically informed, with exceptions such as public meetings recorded with unconcealed devices. |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa.C.S. 5704(4) | A person may intercept only where all parties have given prior consent. |
| Washington | RCW 9.73.030 | Consent of all participants for private communications and conversations. Consent is obtained when one party announces the recording to all others and the announcement is recorded. |
Where the rules differ
- Phone versus in person. Oregon is stricter for in-person conversations. Connecticut and Nevada are stricter for phone calls.
- Private or confidential only. California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, and Washington tie their rules to private or confidential communications. Recording in a setting with no reasonable expectation of privacy may fall outside them.
- Secret recording. Massachusetts covers secret recording, and Illinois covers surreptitious recording. Montana covers hidden devices.
- Notice. Washington, Montana, and Connecticut describe how notice or warning can satisfy the rule.
- Conflicting text. Delaware has two statutes that point in different directions.
- Participants. Michigan’s statute, as read in Sullivan v. Gray, reaches third parties who listen in, not a participant who records.
What this means in practice
- Federal one-party consent does not settle the question. The law of the state where each party is located may also apply.
- When parties are in different states, more than one state’s law may be relevant. Many professionals apply the stricter rule.
- Getting consent on the recording itself, at the start, creates a record that consent was given.
- The federal exception does not cover recording for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.
- Recording rules sit alongside evidence rules. A recording made unlawfully may raise admissibility and liability issues.
Sources
- 18 U.S.C. 2511, Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
- 18 U.S.C. 2511, official text on govinfo
- State statutes are linked in the table above, each to the official legislature or code site.
This guide is general information, not legal advice. USCLI is not a government agency. State recording laws change and are interpreted by courts. Confirm the rule for a specific recording with a qualified attorney in the relevant state.
Last updated October 15, 2026Source: United States Council for Law & Investigation