EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsAlabama Laws flagAlabama Laws
Alabama flag

Alabama

Alabama Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of August 15, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed August 26, 202615 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 15, 2026. · 24 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Alabama Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

Alabama is a one-party consent state for audio recording under Ala. Code 13A-11-31. Any participant in a private conversation, or anyone with the prior consent of at least one party, may record without notifying anyone else. Recording a conversation to which you are not a party and have no party's consent is criminal eavesdropping, a Class A misdemeanor, and the civil remedy runs through federal ECPA or, for wire and electronic interception, Ala. Code 20-2B-12, rather than through Title 13A itself.

Alabama recording law at a glance

QuestionAnswer
Consent ruleOne-party consent
Controlling statuteAla. Code 13A-11-30 to 13A-11-33 (eavesdropping and surveillance); Ala. Code Title 20 Chapter 2B (wire and electronic interception)
When recording is illegalNo party to the communication consents
Criminal penalty (audio)Class A misdemeanor: up to 1 year jail and $6,000 fine
Civil remedyAla. Code 20-2B-12 for wire and electronic interception, plus federal ECPA 18 U.S.C. section 2520 (Title 13A itself creates no civil action)
Hidden cameras (sexual motive)Class C felony under
Recording policeFirst Amendment right recognized by 11th Circuit (Smith v. City of Cumming)

For detailed treatment of each scenario, see the Alabama recording laws in depth section below.

Recording in-person conversations in Alabama

Under Ala. Code 13A-11-30(1), "eavesdrop" means to overhear, record, amplify, or transmit any part of the private communication of others without the consent of at least one person engaged in the communication. The phrase "of others" combined with the at-least-one-party-consent carve-out is what makes Alabama a one-party jurisdiction.

The phrase "private communication" appears within the eavesdrop definition but is not a separately numbered subsection of 13A-11-30. As used in the statute, a private communication is any oral or wire communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that it is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying that expectation. The eavesdrop definition does not extend to electronic communications. Those are reached instead by a separate Alabama chapter, Title 20 Chapter 2B, the Agent Billy Clardy III Act, and by federal ECPA. Title 20 Chapter 2B is aimed at interception devices and wiretap authority rather than at participants: Ala. Code 20-2B-1(b)(8) defines an "electronic, mechanical, or other device" as apparatus primarily designed or used for the nonconsensual interception of wire or electronic communications, Ala. Code 20-2B-12(b)(5) carves out anyone who is a party to the communication or who has one party's prior consent (absent a criminal, tortious, or otherwise injurious purpose), and Ala. Code 20-2B-14 excepts a service subscriber and members of the subscriber's household. A participant recording their own call on their own phone therefore stays outside that chapter as well.

If you are a participant, you can record. You do not need to give notice, play a beep tone, or obtain anyone else's agreement. The pre-Title 13A precedent supporting this is Alonzo v. State, 283 Ala. 607, 219 So. 2d 858 (Ala. 1969), which held that one party's recording of a conversation does not invade a constitutionally protected right of privacy.

A "private place" under 13A-11-30(2) is defined as a location where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance, but it excludes places to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access. That public-access carve-out means conversations in shopping malls, parks, sidewalks, and other publicly accessible spaces carry less expectation of privacy.

Alabama over-the-shoulder view of two people seated mid-conversation, no faces visible

Recording phone calls in Alabama

The one-party consent rule applies identically to landline calls, mobile calls, and VoIP services such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet. You do not need to tell the other party, play a beep tone, or obtain consent for purely intra-Alabama calls.

Federal law sets the same floor. 18 U.S.C. section 2511(2)(d) permits one-party recording unless the interception is for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.

The interstate trap is real. Federal ECPA does not preempt stricter state law, and the more protective state's rule typically applies from that state's end. The all-party consent states bordering or commonly called from Alabama are Florida (Fla. Stat. section 934.03), which requires all-party consent for confidential communications. The safe practice on any call with a Florida participant is to ask first.

For a full cross-state breakdown, see the one-party consent states and two-party consent states directories. The Alabama phone call recording laws sub-page covers VoIP, business-line recording, and multi-party conference calls in more detail.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Alabama has no separate "hidden camera" statute. The relevant criminal hooks are the surveillance trio at 13A-11-32, 13A-11-32.1, and 13A-11-33.

A Ring doorbell or storefront camera recording a public-access entryway is generally lawful. The 13A-11-30(2) definition of "private place" excludes spaces to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access, so a porch camera pointed at a public sidewalk or a dashcam recording a public roadway falls outside the trespass-based 13A-11-32 framework entirely.

Audio captured by a smart camera inside the home is on a different track. Conversations among guests or contractors qualify as "private communication" within the meaning of the eavesdrop definition at 13A-11-30(1) when those speakers exhibit a confidentiality expectation. The homeowner's participation supplies one-party consent only while the homeowner is actually present and a party to the conversation. Audio capture of conversations among others in the home while the owner is absent can fall within 13A-11-31.

A camera placed in a bedroom, bathroom, or changing area for sexual gratification triggers the Class C felony under 13A-11-32.1, even when the placer is the lawful homeowner. Trespass is not an element of 13A-11-32.1. Installing any eavesdropping device in a private place without permission of the owner and any tenant or guest is a separate Class C felony under 13A-11-33, regardless of whether any conversation is ever captured.

The 2023 FTC settlement with Ring required a $5.8 million consumer-redress payment and ongoing privacy-program obligations based on findings of employee and contractor access to customer video without adequate consent or safeguards. Details at ftc.gov.

See the Alabama security camera laws and Alabama voyeurism laws sub-pages for more detail.

Alabama wooden gavel on a sound block on a judge bench

Penalties for illegal recording in Alabama

Alabama's recording penalty structure is a four-tier ladder, differentiated by audio versus video, trespass, and motive.

OffenseStatuteClassMaximum penalty
Criminal eavesdropping13A-11-31Class A misdemeanor1 year jail, $6,000 fine
Criminal surveillance (trespass)13A-11-32Class B misdemeanor6 months jail, $3,000 fine
Aggravated criminal surveillance13A-11-32.1Class C felony1 yr 1 day to 10 yrs prison, $15,000 fine
Installing eavesdropping device13A-11-33Class C felony1 yr 1 day to 10 yrs prison, $15,000 fine
Divulging illegally obtained information13A-11-35Class B misdemeanor6 months jail, $3,000 fine

The sentencing ranges come from Title 13A Chapter 5: Class A misdemeanor at 13A-5-7(a)(1) and 13A-5-12(a)(1); Class C felony at 13A-5-6(a)(3) and 13A-5-11(a)(3). The Class C felony floor is "1 year and 1 day" rather than "1 year"; that single-day specificity matters for plea calculations.

The common misreading is treating 13A-11-32 and 13A-11-32.1 as variations of the same offense. They are separate statutes: 13A-11-32 requires trespass and covers any surveillance motive; 13A-11-32.1 requires neither trespass nor any particular place but does require a sexual gratification motive. A landlord who plants a camera in a tenant's bathroom faces 13A-11-32.1 even without any trespass.

Civil remedies. Alabama's eavesdropping chapter (Title 13A, Chapter 11, Article 2) creates no civil cause of action, but Alabama is not without a statutory civil remedy. Ala. Code 20-2B-12 gives an individual whose wire or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of Title 20 Chapter 2B a civil action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses it, or who procures another to do so, for actual damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. That action carries the same one-party-consent carve-out as the rest of the chapter at 20-2B-12(b)(4) and (b)(5), so it does not reach a participant's own recording, and good faith reliance on a court order is a complete defense under 20-2B-12(c). Beyond that statute, plaintiffs have several routes. The most commonly used is federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. section 2520: actual damages or statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or $10,000 (whichever is greater), plus punitive damages, attorney fees, and equitable relief. The second route is the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion, recognized by the Alabama Supreme Court in Butler v. Town of Argo, 871 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 2003), with Phillips v. Smalley Maintenance Servs., 435 So. 2d 705 (Ala. 1983) as supporting authority. Public disclosure of private facts (where contents of an unlawful recording are then circulated) and the non-consensual intimate imagery statute at 13A-6-240 complete the picture.

Alabama's statutory civil action sets no minimum or liquidated damages figure, which contrasts with states that provide statutory civil floors: South Carolina ($25,000 minimum under S.C. Code 17-30-50), Tennessee ($10,000 under Tenn. Code Ann. section 39-13-603), and Iowa (civil hook under Iowa Code section 808B.3). Alabama plaintiffs relying on section 2520's $10,000 minimum are often in federal court.

Divulging is a separate offense, with a First Amendment limit. makes it a Class B misdemeanor to knowingly or recklessly divulge information obtained through illegal eavesdropping or surveillance. That prohibition cannot reach an innocent recipient's publication: in Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court held the First Amendment protects a radio commentator who broadcast an illegally intercepted phone call, because he played no part in the interception, obtained the tape lawfully, and the conversation concerned a matter of public concern. The ruling shields the innocent discloser's publication; it does not reach the original interceptor's exposure under 13A-11-31.

Alabama folded pair of smart glasses resting on a wooden desk beside a closed notebook

Recording the police in Alabama

Alabama is in the Eleventh Circuit, which has a binding published decision recognizing the right to record police. Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000), grounded the right in the First Amendment information-gathering interest in what public officials do on public property. The right exists subject to reasonable time, manner, and place restrictions.

Two later Eleventh Circuit decisions address Smith. Toole v. City of Atlanta, 798 F. App'x 381 (11th Cir. 2019), cited Smith approvingly and denied qualified immunity to an officer who arrested a protester for filming police activity, but is unpublished (Federal Appendix) and persuasive only. Crocker v. Beatty, 995 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2021), is the most recent published Eleventh Circuit decision on point: the court granted qualified immunity to a deputy who seized a photographer's phone at an interstate accident scene, holding that Smith's language did not clearly establish the right in that specific context. The majority opinion found that Smith provided insufficient notice to officers of the right's exact contours outside its own facts, so this case narrowed the practical reach of Smith rather than reaffirming it wholesale.

Recording your own traffic stop is outside because you are a party to that conversation. Alabama has no buffer-zone or minimum-distance statute. Practical guidance: stand at a safe distance, do not interfere with the officer's duties, and comply with lawful step-back orders.

Body-camera footage is not a default public record. Ala. Code sections 36-21-210 to 36-21-213 (enacted as Act 2023-507, HB 289, effective June 13, 2023) govern body-worn and dashboard camera footage. The framework expressly provides these recordings are not subject to the Open Records Act. A person whose image or voice appears in the recording may file a written request to view it; the agency may decline during an active investigation or where disclosure would compromise safety.

Recording extends beyond individual officer encounters to entire public bodies. The Alabama Open Meetings Act gives an independent statutory right: except during executive session, a meeting of a governmental body "may be openly recorded by any person in attendance by means of a tape recorder or any other means of sonic, photographic, or video reproduction," provided the recording does not disrupt the meeting. Ala. Code 36-25A-6. A governmental body may adopt reasonable rules to implement that right, but it cannot ban recording of an open meeting outright.

For more, see Alabama Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in Alabama

Workplace recording

An Alabama employee can record any conversation they participate in without telling anyone. That covers one-on-one meetings with a manager, HR interviews, performance reviews, and disciplinary sessions. Alabama is also a right-to-work state under Ala. Code 25-7-30 et seq., but right-to-work status does not strip NLRB jurisdiction.

For NLRA-covered employers, the controlling Board test is Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023): a workplace rule is presumptively unlawful if a reasonable economically dependent employee could interpret it as chilling Section 7 protected activity. Blanket no-recording handbook clauses are vulnerable; narrowly tailored rules tied to confidentiality or trade-secret protection with carve-outs for Section 7 activity are defensible. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) was a housekeeping rescission memo and did not reinstate Boeing or overrule Stericycle. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) treats undisclosed recording of an NLRA collective-bargaining session as a per se unfair-labor-practice violation; its reach is narrow in Alabama given low union density.

See Alabama Workplace Recording Laws for the full employee and employer analysis.

AI and deepfake statutes

Alabama enacted three AI-related statutes in the 2024 Regular Session, all effective October 1, 2024.

HB 172 (Act 2024-191), signed May 15, 2024, criminalizes distribution of materially deceptive synthetic media intended to influence an election within a specified pre-election window. First violation is a misdemeanor; subsequent violations are felonies. A clear-and-conspicuous disclaimer is an affirmative defense.

HB 161, signed April 24, 2024, amends Ala. Code 13A-6-240 to add non-consensual creation and synthetic-imagery scope to the non-consensual intimate imagery statute. First offense is a Class A misdemeanor; a subsequent conviction is a Class C felony.

HB 168 amends Title 13A Chapter 12 Article 4 to expressly cover AI-generated and computer-edited visual depictions of minors in sexually explicit conduct. Penalty tracks the underlying CSAM schedule.

Note: Alabama HB 84, SB 78, and the 2025 bills HB 164 and SB 24 are sometimes cited as deepfake legislation but are not enacted Alabama law.

Federal overlay

ECPA. 18 U.S.C. sections 2510 to 2522 set the one-party consent floor nationwide. Section 2511(2)(d) permits one-party recording absent a criminal or tortious purpose. Section 2520 is the civil cause of action Alabama plaintiffs most often rely on, since Title 13A provides no parallel remedy and the state-law action at Ala. Code 20-2B-12 is confined to violations of Title 20 Chapter 2B.

TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. No. 119-12). Signed May 19, 2025, this federal statute criminalizes knowing publication of non-consensual intimate imagery, including AI-generated forgeries of identifiable adults and minors. Covered platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of valid notice. Platform compliance effective May 19, 2026. The federal regime does not preempt or 13A-11-32.1.

FCC 24-24 (vacated). The 2023 FCC one-to-one TCPA consent rule was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025), mandate April 30, 2025. Alabama's own federal circuit struck down this rule. The prior 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(f)(9) was reinstated.

FCC 24-17. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) holds AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial or prerecorded voice" under TCPA. An Alabama consumer who receives an AI-voice scam call may record it as a participant under one-party consent and assert a private TCPA action.

HIPAA. A patient recording their own encounter with an Alabama provider does not violate HIPAA (HIPAA binds the covered entity, not the patient) and is lawful under one-party consent since the patient is a party. A provider recording patient encounters must comply with HIPAA authorization rules for any disclosure. See Alabama Medical Recording Laws.

47 C.F.R. section 64.501 (removed). The historic carrier beep-tone rule was removed effective November 20, 2017. Pre-2018 commentary citing it as requiring a disclosure tone is stale.

Alabama three smartphones around a blank document on a wooden desk

  • October 1, 2024: Three AI statutes take effect: HB 172 (Act 2024-191, election deepfakes), HB 161 (synthetic NCII added to ), HB 168 (AI-generated CSAM added to Title 13A Chapter 12 Article 4).
  • August 2, 2023: NLRB adopts Stericycle test for workplace recording rules, replacing Boeing categorical framework.
  • June 13, 2023: Act 2023-507 takes effect; body-worn and dashboard camera footage in Alabama is not a default public record under to 36-21-213.
  • May 19, 2025: TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. No. 119-12) signed; platform 48-hour removal compliance deadline was May 19, 2026.
  • January 24, 2025: Eleventh Circuit vacates FCC One-to-One Consent Rule in IMC v. FCC; mandate April 30, 2025.
  • June 25, 2025: NLRB GC 25-07 issues guidance treating undisclosed recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se unfair labor practice.

Alabama recording laws in depth

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Alabama laws

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Recording laws change and apply differently to each situation. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed Alabama attorney.

More Alabama Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Alabama a one-party or two-party consent state?

Alabama is a one-party consent state under Ala. Code 13A-11-30 and 13A-11-31. A participant in a private communication, or anyone with prior consent of at least one party, may lawfully record. Alabama is not a two-party or all-party consent state.

Can I record a phone call in Alabama without telling the other person?

Yes, if you are a participant in the call. Alabama one-party consent applies equally to landline, mobile, and VoIP calls. The trap is interstate calls: if the other party is in a stricter all-party consent state such as Florida, that state's law governs from their end and you should ask first.

Is secretly recording someone a felony in Alabama?

It depends on the conduct. Audio interception of others with no party consent is criminal eavesdropping, a Class A misdemeanor. Secret video surveillance for sexual gratification in a place of reasonable expectation of privacy is aggravated criminal surveillance under Ala. Code 13A-11-32.1, a Class C felony (1 year and 1 day to 10 years prison). Installing an eavesdropping device in a private place is also a Class C felony under 13A-11-33.

What can I sue for if I was secretly recorded in Alabama?

Alabama's Title 13A eavesdropping article creates no civil cause of action, but Ala. Code 20-2B-12 does for a wire or electronic communication intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of Title 20 Chapter 2B: actual damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs. That action does not reach a recording made by a party to the communication. Plaintiffs also file under federal ECPA section 2520 (actual damages or statutory damages of $100 per day or $10,000, whichever is greater, plus punitive damages and attorney fees) and add a state-law intrusion-upon-seclusion count under Butler v. Town of Argo, 871 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 2003). Common-law public disclosure of private facts is also available where recording contents are circulated.

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in Alabama?

A Ring or similar camera pointed at a public-access front door or street is generally lawful: the Ala. Code 13A-11-30(2) definition of 'private place' excludes spaces to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access. A camera placed in a private bedroom or bathroom for sexual gratification is a Class C felony under 13A-11-32.1. Audio capture by a camera inside the home when the homeowner is absent and not a party to the conversation can also implicate criminal eavesdropping under 13A-11-31.

Can I record my boss or an HR meeting in Alabama?

Yes under Alabama criminal law. As a one-party consent state, you may record any meeting you participate in. Your employer may still have a no-recording policy, and violating that policy can lead to discipline even though the recording itself is legal. NLRA-covered employers must also draft no-recording rules narrowly under the Stericycle test; a blanket ban that chills Section 7 protected activity may itself be unlawful.

Can I record the police during a traffic stop in Alabama?

Yes. The Eleventh Circuit's binding decision in Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000), recognizes a First Amendment right to record on-duty police in public, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner limits. Recording your own traffic stop is also outside Ala. Code 13A-11-31 because you are a party to the conversation. Stand at a reasonable distance, do not interfere with the officer, and comply with lawful step-back orders.

What AI and deepfake recording laws has Alabama passed?

Alabama enacted three AI statutes in 2024, all effective October 1, 2024. HB 172 (Act 2024-191) criminalizes materially deceptive synthetic media intended to influence an election. HB 161 amends Ala. Code 13A-6-240 to add non-consensual creation and synthetic-imagery scope to the NCII statute. HB 168 adds AI-generated CSAM to the CSAM article of the criminal code. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. No. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) adds a federal platform notice-and-removal layer on top of state law.

Updates

Corrected the civil-remedy analysis: Alabama does have a statutory civil cause of action for unlawful interception of wire and electronic communications under Ala. Code 20-2B-12, and added Alabama's separate wire and electronic interception chapter, Title 20 Chapter 2B (the Agent Billy Clardy III Act), which the page had omitted.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Restructured page: added AEO lede, at-a-glance table, and per-section H2 layout following the recording-redo template. Condensed special-topics subsections (workplace, AI/deepfake, federal overlay) to tight paragraphs while preserving all verified statute citations. Added Alabama recording laws in-depth index linking all 12 subpages. Refreshed FAQSection to 8 questions (phone calls, Ring/nanny cams, police, employer meetings, deepfakes). Confirmed all primary-source citations against ALISON, NLRB, CourtListener, and federal register anchors. Preserved all load-bearing facts from the 2026-05-10 audit.

Refreshed Alabama hub. Anchored the four-tier penalty ladder (Ala. Code 13A-11-31 Class A misdemeanor, 13A-11-32 Class B misdemeanor with trespass, 13A-11-32.1 Class C felony for sexual gratification in a place of reasonable expectation of privacy, 13A-11-33 Class C felony for installing an eavesdropping device) plus the 13A-11-35 divulging tier. Documented the Alabama-specific finding that Title 13A Chapter 11 Article 2 contains no statutory civil cause of action; routed plaintiffs to federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. section 2520 and common-law intrusion upon seclusion under Butler v. Town of Argo, 871 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 2003), with Phillips v. Smalley Maintenance Servs., 435 So. 2d 705 (Ala. 1983) as supporting authority. Added the 2024 Alabama deepfake trilogy: HB 172 (Act 2024-191, election deepfakes, signed by Governor Ivey May 15, 2024), HB 161 (amends Ala. Code 13A-6-240 for synthetic non-consensual intimate imagery, signed April 24, 2024), and HB 168 (CSAM AI, amends Title 13A Chapter 12 Article 4), all effective October 1, 2024. Removed prior references to HB 84 and SB 78 (not enacted Alabama legislation). Corrected the body-camera citation to Ala. Code sections 36-21-210 to 36-21-213, enacted as Alabama Act 2023-507 (HB 289, 2023RS), effective June 13, 2023; flagged that body-cam footage is not a default public record in Alabama. Added the Eleventh Circuit record-the-police chain: Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000) as binding published precedent, Toole v. City of Atlanta, 798 F. App'x 381 (11th Cir. 2019) as unpublished and persuasive only, and Crocker v. Beatty, 995 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2021) as the most recent published reaffirmation with active-emergency narrowing. Surfaced the Eleventh Circuit synergy hook: Alabama's own federal circuit vacated FCC 24-24 in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, mandate April 30, 2025. Reframed NLRB GC 25-05 of February 14, 2025 as a rescission-of-memoranda housekeeping memo (not a Boeing-era reinstatement); confirmed Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) remains controlling. Added a Topic Index linking the 12 Alabama subtopic spokes (audio, dashcam, medical, phone calls, police, public recording, schools, security cameras, video, voyeurism, workplace, landlord-tenant). Added the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act platform compliance milestone effective May 19, 2026; noted 47 C.F.R. section 64.501 was removed effective November 20, 2017. Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with alison.legislature.state.al.us, judicial.alabama.gov, media.ca11.uscourts.gov, and uscode.house.gov.

Refreshed Alabama hub. Anchored the four-tier penalty ladder (Ala. Code 13A-11-31 Class A misdemeanor, 13A-11-32 Class B misdemeanor with trespass, 13A-11-32.1 Class C felony for sexual gratification in a place of reasonable expectation of privacy, 13A-11-33 Class C felony for installing an eavesdropping device) plus the 13A-11-35 divulging tier. Documented the Alabama-specific finding that Title 13A Chapter 11 Article 2 contains no statutory civil cause of action; routed plaintiffs to federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. section 2520 and common-law intrusion upon seclusion under Butler v. Town of Argo, 871 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 2003), with Phillips v. Smalley Maintenance Servs., 435 So. 2d 705 (Ala. 1983) as supporting authority. Added the 2024 Alabama deepfake trilogy: HB 172 (Act 2024-191, election deepfakes, signed by Governor Ivey May 15, 2024), HB 161 (amends Ala. Code 13A-6-240 for synthetic non-consensual intimate imagery, signed April 24, 2024), and HB 168 (CSAM AI, amends Title 13A Chapter 12 Article 4), all effective October 1, 2024. Removed prior references to HB 84 and SB 78 (not enacted Alabama legislation). Corrected the body-camera citation to Ala. Code sections 36-21-210 to 36-21-213, enacted as Alabama Act 2023-507 (HB 289, 2023RS), effective June 13, 2023; flagged that body-cam footage is not a default public record in Alabama. Added the Eleventh Circuit record-the-police chain: Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000) as binding published precedent, Toole v. City of Atlanta, 798 F. App'x 381 (11th Cir. 2019) as unpublished and persuasive only, and Crocker v. Beatty, 995 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2021) as the most recent published reaffirmation with active-emergency narrowing. Surfaced the Eleventh Circuit synergy hook: Alabama's own federal circuit vacated FCC 24-24 in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, mandate April 30, 2025. Reframed NLRB GC 25-05 of February 14, 2025 as a rescission-of-memoranda housekeeping memo (not a Boeing-era reinstatement); confirmed Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) remains controlling. Added a Topic Index linking the 12 Alabama subtopic spokes. Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with alison.legislature.state.al.us, judicial.alabama.gov, media.ca11.uscourts.gov, and uscode.house.gov.

Added wearable recording device guidance covering AI voice recorders (Plaud) and smart glasses (Meta Ray-Bans) under Alabama one-party consent law.

Sources and References

  1. Ala. Code 13A-11-30 (Definitions)(alison.legislature.state.al.us).gov
  2. Ala. Code 13A-11-31 (Criminal eavesdropping, Class A misdemeanor)(alison.legislature.state.al.us).gov
  3. Ala. Code 13A-11-32 (Criminal surveillance, Class B misdemeanor)(alison.legislature.state.al.us).gov
  4. Ala. Code 13A-11-32.1 (Aggravated criminal surveillance, Class C felony)(alison.legislature.state.al.us).gov
  5. Ala. Code 13A-11-33 (Installing eavesdropping device, Class C felony)(alison.legislature.state.al.us).gov
  6. Ala. Code 13A-11-35 (Divulging illegally obtained information)(alison.legislature.state.al.us).gov
  7. Ala. Code 13A-6-240 (Non-consensual intimate imagery, as amended 2024)(alison.legislature.state.al.us).gov
  8. Alabama HB 172 of 2024RS (Act 2024-191, election deepfakes)(alison.legislature.state.al.us).gov
  9. Alabama HB 168 of 2024RS (AI-generated CSAM)(alison.legislature.state.al.us).gov
  10. Ala. Code 36-21-210 (Body-worn and dashboard camera recordings)(alison.legislature.state.al.us).gov
  11. Alabama Act 2023-507 (HB 289, body-cam framework)(alison.legislature.state.al.us).gov
  12. Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000)(courtlistener.com)
  13. Crocker v. Beatty, 995 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2021)(courtlistener.com)
  14. Toole v. City of Atlanta, 798 F. App'x 381 (11th Cir. 2019) (unpublished)(media.ca11.uscourts.gov).gov
  15. Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. 2025)(media.ca11.uscourts.gov).gov
  16. Federal Wiretap Chapter (18 U.S.C. sections 2510 to 2522)(uscode.house.gov).gov
  17. TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. No. 119-12)(congress.gov).gov
  18. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (AI voice in robocalls)(docs.fcc.gov).gov
  19. FCC Removes One-to-One Consent Rule(fcc.gov).gov
  20. FCC Removal of 47 C.F.R. section 64.501 (2017 R&O)(federalregister.gov).gov
  21. Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023)(nlrb.gov).gov
  22. NLRB GC 25-05 (Rescission of certain General Counsel memoranda, Feb. 14, 2025)(nlrb.gov).gov
  23. NLRB GC 25-07 (Surreptitious recording of bargaining sessions, June 25, 2025)(nlrb.gov).gov
  24. FTC v. Ring LLC settlement (2023)(ftc.gov).gov
  25. HIPAA Privacy Rule (45 C.F.R. Part 164)(ecfr.gov).gov
  26. Alabama Judicial System (case-law access)(judicial.alabama.gov).gov
  27. Ala. Code 20-2B-12 (Civil cause of action for violations of article; one-party-consent carve-out)(alison.legislature.state.al.us)
  28. Ala. Code 20-2B-13 (Violations of article, Class C felony)(alison.legislature.state.al.us)
  29. Ala. Code 20-2B-1 (Agent Billy Clardy III Act, short title and definitions)(alison.legislature.state.al.us)
  30. Ala. Code 20-2B-14 (Exceptions for carrier subscribers and household members)(alison.legislature.state.al.us)
Share: