One-Party Consent States: Complete 2026 Guide

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia follow one-party consent recording rules, meaning a participant in a conversation may record it without notifying the other parties. Federal law sets this as the national floor under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d); states may be stricter but not more permissive.

Thirty-eight states plus the District of Columbia permit a participant in a conversation to record it without notifying the other parties, under what is called the one-party consent rule. Federal law codifies this baseline at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d).

Information last verified on May 9, 2026.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses one-party consent recording law across 38 US states plus the District of Columbia, along with three mixed-rule states (Hawaii, Maine, and Oregon) and the federal Wiretap Act baseline. It does not address the 12 all-party (two-party) consent states or foreign jurisdictions. For all-party consent states (including Connecticut), see our two-party consent states guide. For a full US overview, see United States recording laws.

---

What is one-party consent?

One-party consent is the legal rule that allows a participant in a conversation to record it without the knowledge or consent of any other party. The "one party" whose consent is required is you, the person doing the recording. You satisfy the requirement simply by being in the conversation. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) codifies this rule at the federal level, providing that it is not unlawful for a person who is a party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication to intercept that communication, or for a person acting under the color of law to intercept such a communication where at least one party has given prior consent. Thirty-eight states plus DC mirror this baseline by statute or common law. The rule covers phone calls, in-person conversations, video calls, and most electronic communications. It does not authorize recording conversations you are not part of: capturing a conversation between third parties without their knowledge violates the federal Wiretap Act regardless of which state you are in. The Katz v. United States reasonable-expectation-of-privacy doctrine limits recording even in one-party consent states where a person has a reasonable expectation that a communication is private. One-party consent does not override that expectation; it operates within it.

What one-party consent permits

• Recording any phone call you are a party to
• Recording in-person conversations you are participating in
• Recording business meetings you attend
• Authorizing a law enforcement officer (acting under color of law) to record a conversation you are having
• Recording your landlord, employer, or coworker during a direct conversation with them

What one-party consent does not permit

• Recording conversations between other people you are not part of (federal wiretapping in all states)
• Planting a recording device in a room to capture conversations during your absence
• Recording solely to facilitate a crime such as extortion or blackmail under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)'s crime-or-tort exception

For a comparison with states that require everyone's consent, see our two-party consent states guide.

---

Complete list of one-party consent states (2026)

Nevada was added to this article in the May 2026 update, bringing the total to 38 states plus DC, but its classification is not a clean one-party rule. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.650 applies one-party consent to in-person conversations, while Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620, which governs telephone calls, is treated as functionally all-party after Lane v. Allstate Ins. Co., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998), a fractured, four-opinion Nevada Supreme Court decision that read the statute's consent exception to require an emergency showing in addition to one-party consent. Three of these states (Hawaii, Maine, and Oregon) apply split rules depending on the medium or context; they appear in the table below with a caveat marker and are discussed in detail in the mixed-rule section below. Connecticut's criminal wiretap statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-187 to 53a-189) allows one-party consent, but Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d imposes civil liability for recording a telephone conversation without the consent of all parties, so all-party consent is the safe practical standard even though the criminal exposure is narrower. Connecticut is covered in our two-party consent states guide.

Vermont has no dedicated recording-consent statute. The federal one-party consent baseline under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) applies by default.

---

The federal framework: 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), Katz, and Bartnicki

The federal Wiretap Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522, prohibits the intentional interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. Section 2511(2)(d) creates the consent exception: interception is not unlawful when a party to the communication consents, provided the interception is not done for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Section 2510(4) defines "intercept" as the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through electronic, mechanical, or other device. The Supreme Court in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), established the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy doctrine: whether a person has a protected privacy interest in a communication depends on whether that person had a subjective expectation of privacy and whether that expectation was objectively reasonable. In Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the Court held that the First Amendment may protect the disclosure of illegally intercepted communications where the content addresses a matter of public concern and the recipient played no role in the illegal interception. Together, Katz and Bartnicki define the constitutional ceiling that state wiretap statutes must respect.

Under Section 2511(2)(d), the "crime-or-tort" exception strips consent protection from a recording made by a party to the conversation if the sole or primary purpose is to commit a criminal or tortious act against any other party. Courts applying this provision have read it narrowly: the exception requires that the criminal or tortious purpose be the overriding reason for the recording, not an incidental one.

The federal civil remedy under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 allows victims of illegal interception to sue for the greater of actual damages or $100 per day of violation (with a $10,000 minimum), plus punitive damages and reasonable attorneys' fees. The criminal penalty under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)(a) is a fine and up to five years imprisonment for a first offense.

---

Per-state quick answers: Is your state a one-party consent state?

The following 38 mini-answers cover every one-party consent state and the three mixed-rule states. Each answer addresses the most common search query for that state. For full statutes and case law, follow the state spoke links.

Split-rule states below (Hawaii, Maine, Oregon): these three jurisdictions appear in the table above and are included in the 38-state count because they permit one-party consent recording in at least one communication medium, but they impose all-party consent requirements in other contexts. Read the caveat for your specific situation.

---

Mixed-rule states: Oregon, Hawaii, and Maine

Three states in the table above do not fit cleanly into either the one-party or all-party category. Each applies different consent rules depending on the type of communication, the location, or both. Connecticut is sometimes grouped with these states by other sources: its criminal wiretap statute permits one-party consent, but Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d creates civil liability for recording a phone call without all-party consent, so it is treated as all-party for practical purposes (see two-party consent states).

Oregon has one of the sharpest splits in the country, and most popular summaries get it backwards. Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540 imposes an all-party notice requirement on in-person oral conversations: every participant must be specifically informed that the conversation is being recorded, even if you are a party to it. For telephone and electronic communications, Oregon follows the standard one-party rule, and a participant may record without notifying the other side. The 9th Circuit en banc upheld the in-person notice rule against a First Amendment challenge in January 2025, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in October 2025. The criminal penalty for a violation is a Class A misdemeanor.

Watch out: Oregon's in-person notice rule catches many people by surprise, and most online summaries describe it incorrectly. Oregon's stricter rule applies to face-to-face conversations, not to phone calls. A participant in a phone call with someone in Oregon can record under one-party consent. But if you are recording a meeting or in-person conversation in Oregon, every participant must be specifically informed first, even if you are one of them.

Hawaii separates telephone/electronic consent from in-person private-place consent. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42 mirrors the federal Wiretap Act and permits interception where one party consents, covering wire and electronic communications. A separate provision, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1111, prohibits placing an observation device where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and courts have applied it to surreptitious audio recording in private places where no party to the conversation consents to being observed. For phone calls and video calls, Hawaii follows the one-party consent model. For recording in-person conversations in places with a reasonable expectation of privacy, all parties present must consent.

Maine applies different standards depending on medium and context. Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 15, § 709 governs interception of wire communications and tracks a one-party consent model. Separate provisions of the Maine wiretapping statute and privacy law may require all-party consent for in-person recordings in contexts where there is a heightened expectation of privacy. Consult Maine's full spoke page for the current statute text and controlling case law.

---

Interstate calls: which state's law applies?

Courts applying the federal Wiretap Act to interstate calls have generally held that the stricter state's law governs. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), consent by one party in one state does not insulate a recording from liability under a stricter all-party consent law that applies to another party in a different state. The DOJ has advised that where parties are located in different states, the recording should comply with the most restrictive applicable state law to avoid exposure under that state's statute.

The practical rule: if either party to a call is located in California (Cal. Penal Code § 632), Florida (Fla. Stat. § 934.03), Illinois (720 ILCS 5/14-2), or any other all-party consent state, you should obtain consent from all parties before recording. Announcing that you are recording at the start of the call, with all parties remaining on the line, generally establishes implied consent and satisfies all-party consent requirements.

Watch out: "I am in a one-party consent state" does not end the analysis if the other party is not. The other party's state law may apply to them, and you may face liability under that law if you record without their consent.

Oregon's in-person notice rule adds a layer beyond the standard all-party/one-party split. The medium matters: a phone call follows the one-party rule, while an in-person conversation requires all parties to be specifically informed. Do not conflate Oregon's in-person notice rule with a telephone all-party rule (which most online summaries incorrectly attribute to Oregon).

---

Workplace recording: NLRA rights and employer no-recording policies

In one-party consent states, an employee who participates in a workplace conversation may lawfully record it without notifying supervisors, coworkers, or clients. The recording does not violate the applicable wiretap statute because the employee is a party to the communication. However, three independent legal layers may complicate workplace recording beyond the consent question.

First, employer policies may prohibit recording in the workplace. Violating a no-recording policy can result in termination even if the recording itself is legal under state law. Second, the National Labor Relations Board's 2023 decision in Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), reset the standard for evaluating employer work rules. Under Stericycle, a work rule that has a reasonable tendency to chill employees' exercise of Section 7 rights is presumptively unlawful, and the employer bears the burden of proving the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest that cannot be achieved through a narrower rule. A blanket prohibition on all workplace recording is difficult to defend under Stericycle if it sweeps in recording that employees might reasonably understand as protecting their rights to engage in concerted activity. Third, recordings made in the context of documenting safety violations, harassment, discrimination, or wage-and-hour issues may qualify as concerted protected activity under Section 7 of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 157.

Employees considering recording in the workplace should review both the applicable state consent statute and their employer's personnel policies before recording. Even lawful recordings may create legal risks if used improperly or disclosed to third parties.

---

Recording police officers in public

Seven federal circuit courts have recognized a First Amendment right to record law enforcement officers performing their official duties in public. The circuits that have affirmatively recognized this right include the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits. The Eighth Circuit has not joined them: in Molina v. Book, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023), the court held that the right to record police was not clearly established, so its scope remains unsettled in that circuit, which matters here because Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota are all listed as one-party states on this page and all sit within the Eighth Circuit. The Supreme Court has not yet resolved a circuit split on the precise scope of this right.

The practical result of this circuit line is that officers cannot order you to stop recording or confiscate your recording device solely because you are recording their conduct in a public space. Recording in a public space does not implicate the consent analysis under most one-party consent state statutes because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in an officer's public conduct. You must not physically interfere with police operations while recording; courts have uniformly held that the First Amendment right to record does not protect interference with law enforcement activity.

In states that require all-party consent, the recording of police in public is generally analyzed as involving a communication in a public place where neither party has a reasonable expectation of privacy, removing it from the scope of the consent statute. For recording inside a police station or in other non-public spaces, the analysis differs and the applicable consent rules apply.

---

Federal penalties for illegal recording

Violating the federal Wiretap Act by intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication carries criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)(a): a fine under Title 18 and imprisonment for up to five years for a first offense. The criminal penalty applies when the interception lacks any valid consent and is not otherwise authorized.

Civil liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 allows any aggrieved person to bring a private action for illegal interception. Damages available include: the greater of actual damages or statutory damages of $100 per day for each day of violation with a minimum award of $10,000; punitive damages; and a reasonable attorney's fee and litigation costs. These figures are per violation, not per recording.

State penalties vary substantially. Some states treat violations as misdemeanors; others, including California, treat violations as felonies. Penalties for violations of state wiretap statutes are covered in each state spoke.

---

Regulator overlay: FCC, DOJ, FTC, and ABA

Four federal regulatory bodies have addressed recording consent in guidance that supplements the statutory baseline.

The FCC has published guidance to the effect that federal law permits one-party consent for telephone call recording in interstate commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), but also acknowledges that state laws may impose stricter requirements. The FCC's position is that state telephone recording laws are not preempted by federal wiretap law where they provide greater protections to privacy interests.

The DOJ has addressed interstate call recording in the context of law enforcement guidance. The DOJ takes the position that for interstate calls, compliance with the most restrictive applicable state law is the appropriate standard to avoid federal exposure.

The FTC has issued guidance in the context of telemarketing and call-center recording, stating that businesses must comply with applicable state consent requirements and may not rely solely on the federal one-party consent baseline when operating in or directing calls to all-party consent states.

The ABA addressed recording consent for attorneys in Formal Opinion 01-422 (June 24, 2001) [ABA membership required for full text]. The opinion addresses the proposition that an attorney who records a conversation without disclosing the recording to the other party may act inconsistently with Model Rules of Professional Conduct provisions on candor and fairness, even where state law permits the recording. Attorneys practicing in one-party consent states should consult their state bar's rules before recording client or opposing-party communications.

---

---

Disclaimer: The information on this page is general legal information about recording consent laws in the United States. It is not legal advice. Recording laws are jurisdiction-specific, change over time, and interact with federal law in ways that require case-by-case analysis. This article addresses federal law under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522 and state statutes verified as of May 9, 2026. Laws may have changed after that date. Consult a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction before recording a conversation in any context where the legal consequences matter to you.

---

About the author

[PLACEHOLDER: author roster pending]

---

Sources

See [SourcesList] component. Citation JSONB populated from dossier claims c1-c46, c19b, c47, c_police1, c_workplace1-2, c_penalty1-2, r1-r5, r7, r8 during Phase 12 Supabase UPDATE.

---

Related articles

• Two-party consent states: complete guide
• United States recording laws: 50-state overview
• Oregon recording laws
• California recording laws
• Federal Wiretap Act: 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522 explained

---

Last updated: 2026-05-09. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of 2026-05-09.