List of Two Party Consent States (All Party Consent)
*RecordingLaw.com prefers to err on the side of caution with these states as they have special provisions. Make sure to read the state rules, for a short summary view the chart below, to read more in-depth analysis click through to the specific page.
What is a Two Party Consent State? (All Party Consent)
In Two-Party (or all party) consent states it is required by state law that all parties that partake in a conversation must have given consent for that conversation to be recorded when there is an expectation of privacy. This law covers private as well as public places, if there is an expectation of privacy, consent must be given. Generally, video may be recorded in public places with the caveats that your video does not capture the audio or subject of the conversation, and the people are speaking in a public place. Check your state's individual recording laws for more information.
Our recommended Digital Voice Recorder.
Click to read more about one party consent states
Two Party Consent States Table
| State | Simple Terms | Law |
|---|---|---|
| *Connecticut Recording Laws | Connecticut can be considered as both a one party state and two party state. This is because there are different laws for in-person conversations and telephone conversations. Read on for more information. | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-187(a)(2), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d(a) C.G.S.A. § 52-570d |
| California Recording Laws | It is a criminal offense to use any device to record communications, whether they’re wire, oral or electronic, without the consent of everyone taking part in the communication. This means that in California you are not legally allowed to record a conversation you are taking part in unless all parties are in agreement. However, one exception allows that if a conversation taking place in public, within government proceedings, or under conditions where one could be easily overheard is recorded, this cannot be punished under California’s eavesdropping statute. Cal. Penal Code § 632. California also has unique laws as it pertains to the entertainment industry and paparazzi. | Cal. Penal Code § 632, Cal. Civil Code § 1708.8, Cal. Veh. Code § 40008, Kearney v Salomon Smith Barney Inc, |
| Delaware Recording Laws | It is a criminal offense to use any device to record communications, whether they are wire, oral or electronic, without the consent of all parties taking part in the communication. This means that in Delaware you are not legally allowed to record a conversation you are taking part in unless all parties are in agreement. Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1335(a)(4). Also, Delaware has a law that prohibits anyone from trespassing on private property to eavesdrop or carry out any other form of surveillance. Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1335(a)(1). | Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1335(a)(4), Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1335(a)(1), US v Vespe |
| Florida Recording Laws | It is a criminal offense to use any device to record communications, whether they’re wire, oral or electronic, without the consent of everyone taking part in the communication. Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(d). This means that in Florida you are not legally allowed to record a conversation you are taking part in unless all parties are in agreement. | Fla. Stat. § 934.03(2)(d) |
| Illinois Recording Laws | In Illinois, it is a criminal offense to use any device to record communications, whether they’re wire, oral or electronic, without the consent of everyone taking part in the communication. 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. 5/14-2(a)(1). This means that in Illinois you are not legally allowed to record a conversation you are taking part in unless all parties are in agreement. Although the all-party consent stipulation does not apply to police officers who are performing their official duties, there are strict penalties in place for anyone caught recording police activities in public. 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. 5/14-3(g). In December of 2014 the statute was amended to allow the recording of conversations in areas where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. | 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. 5/14-2(a)(1), 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. 5/14-3(g), |
| Maryland Sexting Laws | Maryland’s Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act stipulates that it is a two-party consent state. In this state, it is a criminal offense to tape-record a conversation without the consent of all involved parties. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402. | Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402 |
| Massachusetts Recording Laws | Massachusetts recording law stipulates that it is a two-party consent state. In Massachusetts, it is a criminal offense to use any device to record and/or disseminate communications, whether they’re wire, oral or electronic, without the consent of all contributing parties. Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272, § 99(C). | Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272, § 99(B), Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272, § 99(C) |
All Party Consent States Table (Continued)
| State | Simple Terms | Law |
|---|---|---|
| Michigan Recording Laws* | On the surface it appears that Michigan is an all party consent state, but previously a Michigan court has ruled that the definition of the word 'eavesdrop' inherently refers only to overhearing or recording private conversations (snooping) | Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c, Sullivan v. Gray (1982) |
| Montana Recording Laws | Montana recording law stipulates that it is a two-party consent state, excluding some specific situations. In Montana, it is generally a criminal offense to use a hidden device to record oral or electronic communications without the consent of all contributing parties. Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213 (2011). This means that in Montana you are not legally allowed to secretly record a conversation unless all parties are in agreement, but in some situations recordings can be made without consent as long as this is not done covertly. This means that although consent is not required, all parties must be notified that the conversation is being recorded. | Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213 (2011) |
| New Hampshire Recording Laws | New Hampshire recording law stipulates that it is a two-party consent state. In New Hampshire, it is a criminal offense to use any device to record communications, whether they’re wire, oral or electronic, without the consent of everyone taking part in the conversation. This means that in New Hampshire you are not legally allowed to record a conversation you are taking part in unless all parties are in agreement. However, the offense is considered a misdemeanor instead of a felony if the perpetrator contributed to the communication in question or received the prior consent of one party to the recording. N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:2 (2012). | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:2 (2012). |
| Oregon Recording Laws* | Oregon Law is mixed. For in person oral recordings it is required to have consent from all parties, whereas for digital communications it is effectively a one party consent state where you are only required to have the consent of one party. | Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 165.535, 165.540, |
| Pennsylvania Recording Laws | Pennsylvania recording law stipulates that it is a two-party consent state. In Pennsylvania, it is a criminal offense to use any device to record communications, whether they’re wire, oral or electronic, without the consent of everyone taking part in the conversation. This means that in Pennsylvania you are not legally allowed to record a conversation you are taking part in unless all parties are in agreement. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5704 (West 2012). | 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 5704 |
| Washington Recording Laws | It is a criminal offense to use any device to record communications, whether they are wire, oral or electronic, without the consent of everyone taking part in the conversation. | Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9.73.030 (West 2012). |
If you're interested in privacy, check out our blog post on using VPN's, one of the best ways to protect your privacy on-line.