Yes, you can record a conversation on your phone in most of the United States, but whether you need the other person’s permission depends on where the call happens. Federal law and about 39 states allow recording as long as one person in the conversation agrees, and your own participation counts. Roughly 11 states require every participant to consent first. Get it wrong and you can face felony charges, a civil lawsuit, or both.
One-Party Consent Is the Default
Under federal law, recording a conversation you are part of is legal without telling the other people on the line. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act says interception is lawful when one party consents, provided the recording is not being made to further a crime or civil wrong.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 2511 – Interception and Disclosure of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications Prohibited You are that consenting party. About 39 states and the District of Columbia follow the same rule.2Justia. Recording Phone Calls and Conversations Under the Law: 50-State Survey
Two limits matter. First, you have to actually be a participant. Leaving your phone on a table to capture a conversation between two other people is eavesdropping, not one-party consent recording, and it is illegal everywhere. Second, if your purpose in recording is to commit a crime or a civil wrong, such as blackmail, the one-party rule does not save you.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 2511 – Interception and Disclosure of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications Prohibited
States That Require Everyone’s Consent
A smaller group of states requires every participant to agree before the recording starts. The “two-party consent” label is misleading; if six people are on the call, all six need to say yes. The states that generally follow this all-party rule are California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington.2Justia. Recording Phone Calls and Conversations Under the Law: 50-State Survey The specifics vary. Montana requires the knowledge of all parties rather than formal consent. Michigan courts have found that a participant in a conversation may not be subject to the state eavesdropping statute at all. California is strict about express prior consent and has separate rules about automated beep-tone warnings on recorded calls.
Two states split the rule by format. Nevada requires all-party consent for phone calls but only one-party consent for in-person conversations. Oregon does the opposite: one-party for phone calls, all-party for in-person.2Justia. Recording Phone Calls and Conversations Under the Law: 50-State Survey
How to Actually Get Consent
The cleanest way is to say it out loud at the start: “I’m going to record this call. Is that okay?” A verbal yes, captured on the recording itself, is your best evidence. Many all-party consent states also recognize implied consent when you announce the recording and the other person keeps talking rather than hanging up. Washington’s statute states that consent is obtained when one party announces to the others that recording is about to begin.2Justia. Recording Phone Calls and Conversations Under the Law: 50-State Survey New Hampshire courts have taken a similar view. California is less forgiving and leans toward requiring express prior consent.
Calls That Cross State Lines
Interstate calls are the trickiest scenario. If you are in a one-party state and the person you are speaking with is in an all-party state, there is no single rule about which law governs. Some courts apply the law of the state where the recording device is located, others the law of the state where the person being recorded sits, and others whichever state has the strongest connection to the dispute.
Because the answer depends on the court, the safe move is to follow the stricter rule. If any participant is in an all-party consent state, get everyone’s permission. That covers you against the most restrictive law that could possibly apply. This matters especially on business calls where participants may be dialing in from states you do not know about.
When the Consent Rules Apply
Consent rules attach to conversations that carry a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court’s decision in Katz v. United States set the test: a subjective expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.3Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Katz and the Adoption of the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test A phone call from your home clearly qualifies. A loud conversation at a crowded bar, audible to strangers at nearby tables, generally does not.
What you knowingly expose to the public is not protected even in your own home, and what you try to keep private can be protected even in a public place.3Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Katz and the Adoption of the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Test Note that some all-party consent states criminalize recording any conversation without permission, expectation of privacy or not. The privacy test is a floor, not a ceiling.
Video-Only Recording Is Different
Wiretap laws target audio: oral, wire, and electronic communications, meaning the spoken word. Video with no sound generally falls outside them. Turning off your microphone while filming can move a recording from potential felony territory into legal territory. Once audio is in the mix, though, the consent rules apply to the whole recording. Separate state statutes may still restrict video in bathrooms, locker rooms, and bedrooms, but those are privacy laws, not wiretap laws.
Recording Police Officers
Recording police performing their duties in public is protected by the First Amendment. The First Circuit held in Glik v. Cunniffe that “a citizen’s right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment.”4Justia. Glik v Cunniffe, No. 10-1764 (1st Cir. 2011) Multiple federal circuits have reached the same conclusion.
The right has edges. You cannot physically interfere with an officer’s work, and you cannot enter a crime scene or restricted area to get the shot. In all-party consent states, the audio side of the recording can raise wiretap questions, though courts have increasingly rejected those statutes as applied to public police encounters. The First Circuit struck down Massachusetts’ all-party consent law when it was used to prosecute someone for secretly recording officers on duty. If an officer orders you to stop recording in a public place, courts have repeatedly said that violates the First Amendment; complying in the moment and challenging it later is often the practical call.
Recording at Work
Workplace recordings sit under the same state consent rules as any other conversation. In a one-party state you can record a meeting you attend without telling anyone. In an all-party state you need everyone’s agreement.
Legal does not mean safe. Private employers can adopt no-recording policies, and the National Labor Relations Board upheld blanket workplace recording bans in a 2017 decision involving Boeing.5National Labor Relations Board. NLRB Establishes New Standard Governing Workplace Policies and Upholds No-Camera Rule You can be within your rights under state law and still be fired for violating company policy.
One extra rule applies to union negotiations. In 2025, the NLRB Acting General Counsel issued guidance that secretly recording collective bargaining sessions violates the duty to bargain in good faith under federal labor law, regardless of what a state’s wiretap statute allows.6National Labor Relations Board. NLRB Acting General Counsel Issues Memo on Surreptitious Recording of Collective-Bargaining
Whether the Recording Can Be Used in Court
An illegal recording is usually worthless as evidence. Federal law is explicit: no part of an illegally intercepted communication, and no evidence derived from it, may be received in evidence at any trial, hearing, or other proceeding before any court or government body.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 2515 – Prohibition of Use as Evidence of Intercepted Wire or Oral Communications That covers criminal trials, civil suits, and administrative hearings alike. Illegally recording your landlord confessing to fraud likely means that recording never sees a courtroom, and leads investigators develop from it can be tainted too.
Legal recordings still have to be authenticated. Courts want proof that the recording is accurate, unedited, and that the speakers can be identified. Poor audio, gaps, or signs of editing can get it excluded. Keep the original file untouched, and note when, where, and how you made it.
What It Costs to Get It Wrong
Federal violations are felonies. Illegal interception carries up to five years in prison1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 2511 – Interception and Disclosure of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications Prohibited and fines up to $250,000 for an individual.8Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3571 – Sentence of Fine State penalties vary widely, with maximum fines typically ranging from $2,500 to $10,000 and jail time running from misdemeanor sentences to multi-year felonies. Several all-party states treat violations as felonies that will show up on background checks for employment, housing, and licensing.
The bigger everyday risk is a civil suit. The person you recorded can sue for actual damages, any profits you made, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees. When actual damages are hard to prove, the court can award statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is greater.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 2520 – Recovery of Civil Damages Authorized That $10,000 floor means even a single illegal recording carries real financial exposure before fees are added. Most states with their own wiretap statutes also allow private lawsuits, and some set additional statutory damages on top.