There are twelve states that require all party consent. They are:
California |
There are 38 states that permit one party consent. They are:
|
In all 50 states and through federal law, it's considered illegal to record telephone conversations outside of one party consent. There are a couple of exceptions. In the state of California, one party consent can be applied only under circumstances in which one party is involved in criminal activity which would include extortion or blackmail. In the state of Arizona, the subscriber to a telephone service can record telephone conversations with no party consent when criminal activity is involved. Other than those two known exceptions, all other recordings outside of those states that permit one party consent are a violation of state and federal law. The question is often asked by clients if they can record the telephone conversations of their spouse in a domestic case or the conversations of their children concerning drug usage. In both of these cases, the answer is it's unlawful. Many clients will complain that they own the telephone and pay the telephone bill so they should therefore have a right to record what they want. However, the law doesn't address who owns the phone nor who pays the phone bill. It only addresses the use of one party and all party consent. Anything outside of that is a violation of state law and federal wiretapping law.
NOTE: when the conversation is on the phone and they are parties in different states the law from where the recording device is recording from is the one that applies.
NOW YOU KNOW THE LAW ABOUT WHEN IT IS LEGAL LET SEE WHAT TO USE and where to get it:
9HR Chronograph Wrist Watch Digital Voice Recorder NOTE: great for court rooms
This functional Men's wrist watch (chronograph dials do not work) is also a media player with 512MB flash memory built in.
http://spygear4u.com/audio-voice-recorders.asp
Electrical Outlet Color DVR ( a social worker will never dream this)
note: For extra caution print out a sticker that states " video surveillance " and place on your most UNNOTICEABLE(LMAO )windows but with open view: can not be hiden.
Electrical Outlet Color DVR ( a social worker will never dream this)
note: For extra caution print out a sticker that states " video surveillance " and place on your most UNNOTICEABLE(LMAO )windows but with open view: can not be hiden.
No one will ever be able to tell this electrical outlet conceals a hidden color camera and mini DVR with an SD card to record what the camera sees. Plugging the electrical outlet into a wall plug powers the DVR and the camera.
This hidden camera features motion-activated recording that starts as soon as motion is detected. With motion-activation, you won't have to fast forward through hours of uneventful recording. Also has Motion Detection Area Masking. For example, if you have a dog or cat and don't want it to set off the motion detector, you can mask the lower quarter of the field of vision so it does not detect motion.
You can view your recordings by using the included RCA cable to connect to your TV or computer or insert the included 8GB SD card into your computer.DVR features include:
•Motion activated and scheduled recording
•Motion Detection Area Masking
•Time and date stamp
•Remote Control operation
•MPEG4 file format
•Composite video out
DVR Specifications:
•System: NTSC/PAL
•Storage Media: SD Card
•Frame Rate: 30 fps at 320x240 or
•Codec: MPEG4-SP ASF
•Power Required: 12 Volts
12 fps at 640x480
Color Camera Specs:
•Image Sensor: 1/4” CCD
•Resolution: 380 Lines
•Min. Illumination: 1 Lux
•Lens: 3.7mm Wide Angle
•Power Required: 12 Volts
|
DVR Record Time
|
||||
| Resolution 640x480 320x240 |
Frame Rate 12 FPS 30 FPS |
High Quality 8 hrs 16 hrs |
Med Quality 48 hrs 96 hrs |
Low Quality 72 hrs 144 hrs |
Introducing the most complete portable DVR solution ever! Not only is it a full featured "pocket DVR" with optional self powered button camera, but also a full featured 4 camera security DVR, covert motion activated recorder (using the included concealment case), and camcorder/snapshot (using built-in camera and microphone). Docking Station keeps unit fully charged and on the job for up to 4 camera surveillance system. Quality manufactured in S. Korea.
Docking Station: Quickly and easily keeps unit fully charged and ready for action.
Built in Camera and Microphone: Ready-to-go pocket camcorder, record evidence on the spot!
Concealment Case: Converts the SG-2000 into a non conspicuous "black box" security recorder. Motion activated and/or sound activated, and time/date stamped for solid evidence recording. Up to 3 days stand-by recording on a single charge.
4 Camera DVR: 4 camera inputs and 1 audio input on back of docking station for complete mini surveillance system including remote viewing.
Remote Viewing Capability: LAN cable and remote viewing software included for real time monitor and save.
Body Worn Surveillance: Optional self powered Hi Res button camera makes the perfect body worn system.
Micro SD- USB Stick Memory-USB HDD: Supports up to 8Gb Micro SD card, unlimited USB stick flash memory or USB HDD.
Multiple Playback Options: Recording can be viewed on TV/Monitor directly from unit, USB directly from the unit, or memory card viewed on PC card reader.
Low Power Consumption: 5.5 Hours continuous recording on a fully charged unit.
Summary of Consent Requirements for Taping Telephone Conversations
This chart sets forth the applicable law regarding whether telephone conversations may be lawfully recorded. Remember that unless the caller and the called party are in the same state - then only that state's law would apply - the interstate call actually implicates three bodies of law, federal law, the law of the calling-party's state, and the law of the called- party's state. Each law must be obeyed.The federal statute convering the interception and disclosure of wire communications is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 2511. The statute is the blueprint for many of the state statutes in this area of the law. It requires one-party consent and states it is not unlawful "for a person not acting under the color of state law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic 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 tortuous act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any state." 18 U.S.C. §2511(d).
As to the individual states, each can be grouped in one of two categories. Specific statute citations for each state follow.
| One Party Consent States | Two Party Consent States | |
| Alabama | New Mexico | California |
| Alaska | New York | Connecticut |
| Arizona | North Carolina | Delaware |
| Arkansas | North Dakota | Florida |
| Colorado | Ohio | Maryland |
| District of Columbia | Oklahoma | Massachusetts |
| Georgia | Oregon | Nevada (see other statute) |
| Hawaii | Rhode Island (see case law) | New Hampshire |
| Idaho | South Carolina (no statute, see case law) | Pennsylvania |
| South Dakota | Vermont | |
| Indiana | Tennesee | Washington |
| Iowa | Texas | Illinois |
| Kansas | Utah | |
| Kentucky | Virginia | |
| Louisiana | West Virginia | |
| Maine | Wisconsin (see other statute) | |
| Michigan (see other statute) | Wyoming | |
| Minnesota | ||
| Mississippi | ||
| Missouri | ||
| Montana | ||
| Nebraska | ||
| New Jersey | ||
A further explication of the relevant law is as follows:
| Alabama | Ala. Code § 13A-11-30(1) | The Statutory definition of eavesdropping excludes the recording of a conversation with the consent of one party. Thus, the citizen has a right to record his own conversations. |
| Alaska | Alaska Stat. §§ 42.40.300(a) & 42.20.310(a)(1) | Statute does not prohibit the use of an eavesdropping device to record a private conversation when there is the consent of "a party to the conversation." Accord Palmer v. State , 604 P. 2d 1106, 1108 n. 5 (Alaska 1976)(finding the statute was clearly intended to prohibit third-party eavesdropping and is not applicable to a situation where one of the participants recorded the conversation.) |
| Arizona | Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3005 | A party is not prohibited from intercepting oral communications. |
| Arkansas | Ark. Code Ann. § 5-80-120(a) | It is lawful to record a communication if one is a party to the communication or has received the prior consent of a party to the communication. |
| California | Cal. Penal Code § 632(a) | Statute prohibits the recording of confidential communications without "the consent of all parties." Evidence obtained in violation of this section may not be used in any judicial proceeding. This prohibition is confined to confidential communications, defined by statute as "any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties there to," but does not include communications made under any "circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded." |
| Colorado | Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303(1) | Statute does not prohibit the recording of a conversation by either a "sender or intended receiver" of a telephone communication. |
| Connecticut | Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-570d(a) | Statute creates a civil cause of action for any person whose telephone conversation is recorded unless the person recording the conversation received the "consent of all parties to the communication." Consent must be obtained either in writing or at the beginning of the recorded conversation." |
| Delaware | Del. Code. Ann. tit. 11, § 1335(a)(4) | It is a violation of privacy (both a criminal misdemeanor and civilly actionable) to intercept a telephone conversation without the consent of all parties. |
| District of Columbia | D.C. Code. Ann. § 23-542(b)(3) | It is lawful to intercept a communication if one is a party to the communication or has received the prior consent of a party to the communication. |
| Georgia | Ga. Code Ann. §§ 16-11-62 | Statute allows a party to a communication to record the communication. Accord Sheppard v. 16-11-66(a)Reid, 402 S.E.2d 793,793-94 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991) |
| Hawaii | Haw. Rev. Stat. §§803-42(b)(3) & 711-1111(1)(d) | It is neither invasion of privacy nor eavesdropping to record a telephone conversation if a party to the conversation. |
| Illinois | 720 ILS 5/14-2"(a) | Statute prohibits recording a telephone conversation without the consent of "all parties to [the] conversation." But, Illinois courts have found that the recording of a conversation by a party to the conversation is not a violation of the statute even if another party to the conversation is unaware of the recording. People v. Jansen, 561 N.E.2d 312, 314 (Ill. App. Ct. 1990). |
| Indiana | Ind. Code Ann. § 35-33.5-1-5(2) | Statute allows the recording of a telephone conversation by either the sender or receiver of the communication |
| Iowa | Iowa Code Ann. §§ 727.8 & 808B.2(2)(c) | Statute allows a sender or receiver to record a telephone conversation |
| Kansas | Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 21-4001(a)(3) & 21-4002(a)(1) | It is neither invasion of privacy nor eavesdropping to record a telephone conversation if the recording is accomplished with the consent of either the sender or receiver of the communication. Accord State v. Norris, 502 P .2d 817, 823 (Kan. 1972) |
| Kentucky | Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 526.010 | To avoid falling under the eavesdropping statute the consent of at least one party to the telephone conversation must be received |
| Minnesota | Minn. Stat. Ann §626A.D2 subd. 2(d) | It is lawful to intercept a communication if one is a party to the communication or has received the prior consent of a party to the communication |
| Mississippi | Miss. Code Ann. §41-29-531(e) | Statute exempts from civil liability the interception of a communication if the interceptor is a party to the communication or has received the prior consent of a party to the communication |
| Missouri | Mo. Ann. Stat. § 542.402(2)(3)(Supp.) | It is lawful to intercept a communication if one is a party to the communication or has received the prior consent of a party to the communication |
| Montana | Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213 | It is a violation of privacy in communications to record a conversation "without the knowledge of all parties to the conversation." But, Montana case law indicates, at least in a criminal setting, that recording a telephone conversation when one of the participants consents is permissible. State v. Coleman , 616 P.2d 1090, 1096 (Mont. 1980). see also State v. Brown 755 P.2d 1364, 1368 (Mont. 1988); State v. Cannon, 687 P .2d 705, 708 (Mont. 1984). |
| Nebraska | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-702(2)(c) | It is lawful to intercept a communication if one is a party to the communication or has received the prior consent of a party to the communication. |
| Nevada | Nev. Rev. Stat. §§200.620 & 48.077 | It is unlawful to intercept a telephone conversation unless one party to the communication consents and an emergency situation exists making it impractical to get a court order permitting the interception. But, Nevada statutorily allows the admission in its courts of the contents of anycommunication lawfully intercepted under the laws of another jurisdiction if the interception occurred in the other jurisdiction. |
| New Hampshire | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §570-A:2(1-a) | It is unlawful to record a telephone conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation. |
| New Jersey | N.J. Rev. Stat. §2A:156A-4(d) | It is lawful to intercept a communication if one is a party to the communication or has received the prior consent of a party to the communication. |
| New Mexico | N.M. Stat. Ann §30-12-1(C)&(E) | It is lawful to record a telephone conversation with the consent of a "sender or intended recipient" of the conversation. |
| New York | N.Y. Penal Law §250.00(1) | It is lawful to record a telephone conversation if one is a party to the conversation or has received the consent of a party to the communication. Accord People v. Lasher, 447 N.E.2d. 70, 71 (N.Y. 1983). |
| North Carolina | N.C. Gen Stat. §15A-287(a) | It is lawful to intercept a communication with the consent of one party to the communication. |
| North Dakota | N.D. Cent. Code §12.1-15-02(3)(c) | It is a defense to prosecution for interception of wire communications that one was a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication gave prior consent to the interception |
| Ohio | Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2933.52(B)(4) | It is lawful to intercept a communication if one is a party to the communication or has received the prior consent of a party to the communication. |
| Oklahoma | Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, §176.4(5) | It is lawful to intercept a communication if one is a party to the communication or has received the prior consent of a party to the communication. |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa. Cons. Stat Ann. §5704(4) | It is unlawful to intercept a telephone conversation unless all parties to the conversation give prior consent to the interception. Accord Commonwealth v. McCoy 275 A. 2d 28, 30 (Pa. 1971); Commonwealth v. Jung, 531 A.2d 498, 502-04 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987). |
| Rhode Island | R.I. Gen. Laws §11-35-21(c)(3) | It is lawful to intercept a communication if one is a party to the communication or has received the prior consent of a party to the communication. |
| South Carolina | No state statute | South Carolina does not have a state statute on its books that regulates the interception of phone conversations. But, South Carolina case law indicates that when such issues arise in South Carolina courts, the courts will look to 18 U.S.C §2511. the federal statute on the interception and disclosure of wire communications. Under 18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(d), it is lawful to intercept a communication if one is a party to the communication or has received the prior consent of a party to the communication. See Mays v. Mays, 229 S.E.2d 725, 726-27 (S.C. 1976) (finding that 18 U.S.C. §2511(2)(d) "makes it clear that one party to a telephone conversation may lawfully tape the conversation without the other's knowledge or permission and subsequently disclose [the conversation]."); Thompson v. State , 479 S.E.2d 808, 810-11 (S.C. Ct. App. 1996) (finding that taped telephone conversations between defendant and confidential informant did not violate 18 U.S.C. §2511 and the defendants right to privacy). |
| South Dakota | S.D. Codified Laws Ann. §23A-35A-20(1) | It is lawful to record a telephone communication if one is a sender or receiver of the communication or has received the consent of a sender or receiver of the communication. |
| Tennessee | Tenn. Code Ann. §39-13-601(b)(5) | It is lawful to intercept a communication if one is a party to the communication or has received the prior consent of a party to the communication. |
| Texas | Tex. Penal Code Ann. §16.D2(c)(4) | It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for interception of wire communications that one was a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication gave prior consent to the interception. |
| Utah | Utah Code Ann. §§76-9-401(2), 76-9-403(1)(a), & 77-23a-4(7)(b) | It is lawful to intercept a communication if one is a party to the communication or has received the prior consent of a party to the communication. |
| Vermont | No state statute | There is no state statute on the books regulating the interception of telephone conversations. The case law is sparse in this area and has not yielded a clear indication of whether Vermont is a one-party or two-party consent state. In one case, the court indicated, without deciding the issue, that the federal statute on interception and disclosure of wire communications (18 U.S.C. §2511) was applicable in the state setting. State v. Fuller, 503 A. 2d 550, 551 (Vt. 1985) . The federal statute permits one party to a communication to intercept the communication. Another Vermont case indicates that, in a criminal setting , challenges to recorded conversations may be made on Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment grounds. State v. Kasper, 404 A.2d 85, 92-93 (Vt. 1979). |
| Washington | Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §9.73.030(1)(a) | It is unlawful to record a telephone conversation without the consent of all the participants in the conversation. |
| West Virginia | W. Va. Code §62-1D-3(c)(2) | It is lawful to intercept a communication if one is a party to the communication or has received the prior consent of a party to the communication. |
| Wisconsin | Wis. Stat Ann. §§968.31(c) &885.365(1) | It is lawful to intercept a communication if one is a party to the communication or has received the prior consent of a party to the communication. But, another section of the Wisconsin code states that evidence obtained by recording telephone conversations shall be totally inadmissible in civil actions in the courts of Wisconsin. |
| Wyoming | Wyo. Stat. §7-3-602(b)(iv) | It is lawful to intercept a communication if one is a party to the communication or has received the prior consent of a party to the communication. |
