Indiana Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent, IC 35-33.5

September 29, 2017Updated May 16, 202643 min read

Indiana is a one-party consent state. Under Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-5, you may lawfully record a phone call, a video meeting, or any other transmitted electronic communication if you are a party to the conversation, or if at least one party has given you prior consent. The textual basis is the definition of "interception" at Ind. Code 35-31.5-2-176, which reaches a recording made "by a person other than a sender or receiver of that communication, without the consent of the sender or receiver." A participant in the conversation is a sender or receiver, so their consent satisfies the statute and the criminal offense is not triggered. (c1, c3)

Recording without any party's consent is a Level 5 felony in Indiana: 1 to 6 years in prison with a 3-year advisory sentence and a fine up to $10,000 under Ind. Code 35-50-2-6(b). Civil damages under Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-4 are the greater of actual damages or $100 per day of violation or $1,000, plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney's fees, with a two-year statute of limitations.

This page is the Indiana recording-law hub on RecordingLaw.com. It walks through the controlling statutes (definition at Ind. Code 35-31.5-2-176, scope at Ind. Code 35-31.5-2-110, offense at Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-5, civil action at Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-4), the leading Indiana Supreme Court and Seventh Circuit authority, criminal and civil penalties, federal overlays, workplace and police-recording rules, and Indiana's two 2024 AI statutes (HEA 1133 deepfake elections and HEA 1047 intimate-image expansion). For state-by-state context, see the full list of one-party consent states and the counter-list of all-party consent states.

Indiana is a one-party consent state. Under Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-5 read with the "interception" definition at Ind. Code 35-31.5-2-176, a single party's consent satisfies the statute. If you are part of the conversation, you may record it without telling the other person. The criminal prohibition only reaches recordings made by someone who is neither a sender nor a receiver of the communication, where no party to the communication consents. (c1, c3)

The Indiana Supreme Court applied the same statute in State v. Lombardo, 738 N.E.2d 653 (Ind. 2000), holding that the Wiretap Act is constitutionally clear and that placing a recorder to capture a spouse's calls with a third party (where the placer is a participant in NEITHER end of those calls) is the paradigmatic violation. Indiana's rule matches the federal one-party-consent floor under 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) (ECPA), so the two operate in parallel. (c5, r1)

Scenario	Indiana Rule
Recording a phone call you are part of	Lawful (one-party consent)
Recording with consent from at least one party	Lawful
Recording a phone call you are not part of without any party's consent	Level 5 felony
Recording in-person conversation as a participant	Outside wiretap chapter (face-to-face oral excluded)
Hidden video in private place (bedroom, bath, fitting room)	Voyeurism under Ind. Code 35-45-4-5
AI-generated intimate imagery distributed without consent	Class A misdemeanor / Level 6 felony with prior under Ind. Code 35-45-4-8
AI deepfake of a political candidate without disclaimer	Civil cause of action under HEA 1133 (P.L.83-2024)

Legal information, not legal advice. This page provides general educational content about Indiana recording law. Whether the participant-consent rule applies to your situation depends on the facts, and other statutes (voyeurism, intimate-image distribution, civil invasion of privacy) may apply even where the wiretap chapter does not. Talk to a licensed Indiana attorney before recording any conversation that may have legal consequences.

Wi-Fi router with green status lights on a wooden side table, illustrating the transmitted electronic communications covered by Indiana's wiretap chapter

Indiana's Wiretap Statute: IC 35-33.5 Explained

Indiana's wiretap and electronic-surveillance regime sits in Ind. Code Article 33.5 of Title 35. The chapter has a dual-statute structure that readers regularly confuse: the operative criminal offense lives in Chapter 5 (Ind. Code 35-33.5-5), but the definitions that decide whether a recording is "interception" at all live one article over, in Ind. Code Article 31.5, Chapter 2. Both chapters must be read together. (c1, c2, c3, c4)

The "Interception" Definition (Ind. Code 35-31.5-2-176)

The definition that controls Indiana's one-party rule reads in full:

"'Interception', for purposes of IC 35-33.5, means the intentional recording or acquisition of the contents of an electronic communication by a person other than a sender or receiver of that communication, without the consent of the sender or receiver, by means of any instrument, device, or equipment under this article. The term includes the intentional recording or acquisition of communication through the use of a computer or a fax (facsimile transmission) machine." Source: Ind. Code 35-31.5-2-176.

Three things in that definition do all the work in Indiana recording cases. First, the prohibited conduct is recording or acquiring "the contents of an electronic communication." Second, the prohibition only attaches when the recorder is "a person other than a sender or receiver." Third, even a non-participant can record lawfully if a sender or receiver consents. The "sender or receiver" textual basis is exactly what makes Indiana a one-party-consent jurisdiction: a participant who records is a sender or receiver, so the statute is not triggered. (c1)

The "Electronic Communication" Definition (Ind. Code 35-31.5-2-110)

The other half of the dual-statute structure is the definition of "electronic communication" itself. Indiana's wiretap chapter does not reach every audible exchange. It reaches a specific category of transmitted communications, and the boundary lives at Ind. Code 35-31.5-2-110:

"'Electronic communication', for purposes of IC 35-33.5, means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, oral communication, digital information, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, a radio, or an electromagnetic, a photoelectronic, or a photo-optical system. The term does not include the following: (1) An oral communication. (2) A communication made through a tone only paging device. (3) A communication from an electronic or mechanical tracking device permitting only the tracking of a moving object. (4) An electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a system used for the storage and transfer of that information." Source: Ind. Code 35-31.5-2-110.

The transmitted-only requirement is the defining scope quirk of Indiana's wiretap chapter. The statute reaches contents broadly: signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, oral communication, digital information, or intelligence. The chapter reaches that content only when the content is transmitted by wire, radio, or one of the three listed systems. Crucially, the statute then expressly excludes purely in-person "oral communication" from the "electronic communication" bucket. Face-to-face conversation that never travels over a wire or wireless system is not within the wiretap chapter at all. (c2)

That distinction tells you which Indiana statute applies to which kind of recording. Phone calls, VoIP, video meetings, SMS, email, voicemail, and any other transmitted exchange are governed by Ind. Code 35-33.5. Two people talking across a kitchen table, or a hidden microphone capturing untransmitted speech, are not reached by the wiretap chapter, even though voyeurism, civil invasion-of-privacy torts, or the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act may apply. (c2, c8)

The Criminal Offense (Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-5)

The operative criminal section is Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-5. Subsection (b) is the workhorse:

"A person who knowingly or intentionally intercepts a communication in violation of this article commits unlawful interception, a Level 5 felony." Source: Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-5(b).

Subsection (a) preserves the federal authorization defense for any person who intercepts wire, oral, or electronic communications as authorized by federal law. Subsection (c) reaches use or disclosure: "A person who, by virtue of the person's employment or official capacity in the criminal justice system, knowingly or intentionally uses or discloses the contents of an interception in violation of this article commits unlawful use or disclosure of an interception, a Level 5 felony." Both offenses sit at the same Level 5 felony tier. (c3)

Indiana switched from the Class A/B/C/D felony classification system to the Level 1 through Level 6 system effective July 1, 2014, by HEA 1006-2013. Older sources still describing Indiana wiretap violations as a "Class D felony" are stale; the current classification is Level 5 felony. (c3, c6)

The Civil Cause of Action (Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-4)

Indiana's civil cause of action sits one section earlier than the criminal offense, at Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-4. The statute has four subsections that every plaintiff and defendant should read together:

"(a) A person has a civil cause of action against a person who intercepts, discloses, uses, or procures another person to intercept, disclose, or use a communication in violation of this article, and is entitled to recover from the person: (1) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at a rate of one hundred dollars ($100) each day for each day of violation, or one thousand dollars ($1,000), whichever is greater; (2) punitive damages; and (3) reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. (b) A good faith reliance on a warrant or an extension issued under this article constitutes a complete defense to a civil action brought under this section. (c) A person has an affirmative defense under this section if the person was unaware that the communication was intercepted in violation of this article. (d) An action under this section must be brought within two (2) years after the date that the interception, disclosure, or use of a communication in violation of this article initially occurs." Source: Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-4.

The civil-damages floor is the greater of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, on top of any actual damages the plaintiff can prove. Some sources report the floor as "$100 per day only"; the statute is explicit that the $1,000 minimum applies whenever it exceeds the $100-per-day calculation. Punitive damages and reasonable attorney's fees are also recoverable. The two-year statute of limitations runs from the date the violation initially occurred, not from discovery. The good-faith warrant reliance defense applies even where a warrant later proves defective. The lack-of-knowledge affirmative defense applies where a defendant disclosed or used a recording without realizing it had been unlawfully intercepted. (c4)

Three smartphones arranged around a blank document on a wooden desk, illustrating Indiana phone-call recording under Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-5

Penalties for Illegal Recording in Indiana

Penalties for unlawful recording in Indiana scale across two tracks: the criminal offense at Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-5, and the civil cause of action at Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-4. Both apply on the same set of facts. A defendant can face Level 5 felony exposure and a private suit for the same recording.

Criminal Penalties (Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-5)

Unlawful interception is a Level 5 felony. Indiana's general felony sentencing statute, Ind. Code 35-50-2-6(b), sets the Level 5 range:

Penalty	Range
Prison	1 to 6 years
Advisory sentence	3 years
Fine	Up to $10,000
Probation	Available at court's discretion

Use or disclosure of an interception by criminal-justice personnel under Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-5(c) is also a Level 5 felony. The participant-consent rule operates the same way for civilian and government defendants. (c3, c6)

Civil Liability (Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-4)

A victim of unlawful interception has a private right of action under Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-4. Damages are mandatory once liability is established:

Civil Remedy	Calculation
Actual damages	Plaintiff's actual loss
Liquidated damages floor	$100 per day of violation OR $1,000 minimum (whichever is greater)
Punitive damages	Available
Attorney's fees	Reasonable fees and litigation costs
Statute of limitations	2 years from initial violation

The "whichever is greater" formulation matters in short-duration cases. A 5-day violation yields $1,000 (the $1,000 floor exceeds 5 x $100). A 30-day violation yields $3,000 ($100 x 30). The floor never falls below $1,000, no matter how brief the violation. Good-faith warrant reliance is a complete defense; lack of knowledge that the communication was unlawfully intercepted is an affirmative defense. The two-year statute of limitations runs from the date the violation "initially occurs," so a plaintiff who discovers an old recording years later may be time-barred. (c4)

Evidence Admissibility in Indiana Courts

Recordings made lawfully under the participant-consent rule are generally admissible in Indiana courts, subject to the ordinary rules of evidence (relevance, authentication under Indiana Rule of Evidence 901, hearsay, prejudice). Recordings made in violation of Ind. Code 35-33.5 are generally excluded under Indiana evidentiary doctrine and the federal exclusionary principles flowing from 18 U.S.C. 2515. Indiana has no separate civil-court inadmissibility statute analogous to Virginia's Va. Code 8.01-420.2. (c3, r1)

Wireless earbuds in their open charging case on a white desk, evoking transmitted audio that falls within Indiana's wiretap chapter

Phone vs In-Person Recording in Indiana

The transmitted-only scope of Ind. Code 35-33.5 produces an asymmetric result that confuses many readers. Phone-call participant recording is plainly legal under the wiretap chapter; in-person participant recording is also lawful as a wiretap matter, but only because the wiretap chapter does not reach face-to-face conversation at all. Other statutes may apply.

Recording Phone Calls

Phone calls are the paradigm case. A landline call, a cell phone call, a VoIP call (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet, FaceTime), and an SMS message are all transmitted electronic communications under Ind. Code 35-31.5-2-110. They travel by wire, radio, or one of the listed systems, so they fall within the "electronic communication" bucket. As a participant, you are a "sender or receiver" under Ind. Code 35-31.5-2-176, so your consent satisfies the statute. (c1, c2)

Practical implications:

You may record any call you are on, without telling the other party.
You may record VoIP and video meetings (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet) you participate in, even if the platform itself does not display a recording indicator.
You may record voicemail messages left for you.
A non-participant who records your call without any party's consent commits a Level 5 felony under Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-5.
An employer that records employee calls as a party to a business call (for example, on a recorded customer-service line where the employer is the receiving party) is recording its own communication and falls within the participant exception.

Recording In-Person Conversations

Face-to-face conversation gets a different analysis. Ind. Code 35-31.5-2-110 expressly excludes "oral communication" from the "electronic communication" definition. A spoken exchange between two people standing in a room, with no transmission over wire or wireless system, is not within the wiretap chapter at all. The chapter has nothing to say about whether you can record it. (c2)

That does not mean in-person recording is risk-free. Three other Indiana statutes regularly reach in-person video recording even where the wiretap chapter does not:

Voyeurism (Ind. Code 35-45-4-5): peeping into private places, hidden cameras in dwellings, public voyeurism, and aerial drone voyeurism. Class B or Class A misdemeanor base; Level 6 felony with a prior unrelated conviction.
Distribution of an intimate image (Ind. Code 35-45-4-8): sharing intimate imagery without consent, including AI-generated and digitally altered imagery after HEA 1047 of 2024. Class A misdemeanor base; Level 6 felony with a prior.
Civil invasion-of-privacy torts: Indiana recognizes intrusion upon seclusion and public-disclosure-of-private-facts torts under common law.

For sensitive in-person recordings (medical visits, family disputes, settlement discussions, romantic encounters), best practice is to get express consent in writing even though the wiretap chapter does not require it. The express-consent step protects you against tort exposure that the wiretap statute does not reach. (c8, c9)

Recording in Your Own Home

Indiana law generally allows you to record conversations in your own home if you are participating in them. You cannot, however, plant a hidden recording device and leave the room to capture conversations in which you are not a participant. That is the Lombardo paradigm: a non-participant recorder is exactly the conduct the wiretap chapter prohibits. (c5)

Smart-home devices (Ring cameras, nanny cams, indoor security cameras with audio) raise a separate problem. If the device captures audio of conversations between guests or service workers in which no party to the conversation has consented, the device may produce unlawful interceptions even though the homeowner installed it. Audio-capable smart cameras inside an Indiana home should be configured to disable audio recording in spaces where guests have a reasonable expectation of private conversation, or guests should be notified and consent obtained. The 2023 FTC v. Ring settlement (1:23-cv-01549, D.D.C., $5.8 million consumer redress) underscores the federal-overlay risk for camera vendors and operators. (r9)

Broadcast camcorder on a tripod in an empty studio, illustrating the video-capture conduct reached by Indiana's voyeurism statute

Hidden Cameras and Video Recording in Indiana

Because Ind. Code 35-33.5 reaches only transmitted electronic communications, Indiana relies on a separate statutory regime to reach surreptitious in-person video recording. The two operative statutes are Ind. Code 35-45-4-5 (voyeurism, public voyeurism, aerial voyeurism) and Ind. Code 35-45-4-8 (distribution of an intimate image, expanded by HEA 1047 of 2024 to reach AI-generated imagery).

Voyeurism (Ind. Code 35-45-4-5)

Ind. Code 35-45-4-5 prohibits voyeurism, public voyeurism, and remote aerial voyeurism (drone-based peeping). The penalty structure scales by both subsection and offender history:

Subsection	Conduct	Base	With Prior
35-45-4-5(b), without device	Peeping into a dwelling or disrobing area	Class B misdemeanor (up to 180 days; up to $1,000)	(no escalation)
35-45-4-5(b), with camera	Camera-based peeping	Class A misdemeanor (up to 1 year; up to $5,000)	Level 6 felony (6 mo to 2.5 yr; up to $10,000)
35-45-4-5(d)	Public voyeurism (recording another's private area in public)	Class A misdemeanor	Level 6 felony
35-45-4-5(e)	Remote aerial voyeurism (drone-based peeping at private area)	Class A misdemeanor	Level 6 felony

The Level 6 felony enhancement in this statute applies only to repeat-offender voyeurism. It does not change the unlawful-interception classification under Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-5, which remains Level 5. The two offenses sit at different felony tiers; do not merge them. (c8)

Voyeurism reaches conduct in private places where an occupant reasonably expects to disrobe (restrooms, bathrooms, dressing rooms, fitting rooms, bedrooms, showers). Public voyeurism reaches recording of another person's private area in a public place with intent to peep. Remote aerial voyeurism reaches drone-mounted cameras directed at a private area. Drone operators must keep cameras off neighbors' bathrooms, fenced backyards used for sunbathing, hot tubs, and similar spaces; public aerial photography that does not target a private area is not reached by the statute, though FAA regulations and local Indiana ordinances may impose separate limits. (c8)

Distribution of an Intimate Image (Ind. Code 35-45-4-8)

Ind. Code 35-45-4-8 is Indiana's nonconsensual-intimate-image (NCII) statute. The base offense (distribution of an intimate image without consent) is a Class A misdemeanor; a Level 6 felony with a prior unrelated conviction. House Enrolled Act 1047 of 2024 (Pub. L. 117-2024), effective July 1, 2024, expanded the statute to reach AI-generated and digitally altered intimate imagery, and amended Ind. Code 35-45-4-5 to reach hidden-camera capture of intimate images. After HEA 1047, distribution of a deepfake nude image of an identifiable person carries the same penalty as distribution of an unaltered intimate image. (c9)

For a broader discussion of Indiana hidden-camera and surveillance rules outside the wiretap chapter, see our Indiana surveillance camera laws spoke and the cross-jurisdictional explainer on whether it is illegal to video record someone without their consent.

Glass-walled conference room with figures behind translucent doors, evoking workplace bargaining sessions under NLRB Stericycle and GC 25-07

Recording the Police in Indiana (Seventh Circuit, ACLU v. Alvarez)

Indiana sits in the Seventh Circuit, along with Illinois and Wisconsin. The controlling First Amendment authority on recording on-duty police officers in public is ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012). (c7)

The Seventh Circuit ordered a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Illinois eavesdropping statute as applied to the ACLU's program of openly recording on-duty police officers in public. Judge Sykes wrote that the First Amendment's audio-recording protection extends to recording police officers without their consent in public, that the speech-related interest in newsgathering and accountability triggers heightened scrutiny, and that the statute as applied was not narrowly tailored to the state's interest in conversational privacy. (c7)

Alvarez is binding precedent in Indiana federal courts. Indiana itself has no parallel state Right-to-Record statute. Combined with the participant-consent rule under Ind. Code 35-31.5-2-176, a citizen openly recording police in public is doubly protected: the participant rule covers conversations the citizen joins (for example, a traffic-stop interaction); Alvarez covers audio of officer-to-officer or officer-to-third-party conversations the citizen overhears in public.

Practical limits remain. Even under Alvarez, you must not interfere with police activity, must maintain a reasonable distance, must comply with lawful time, place, and manner orders to step back, and must not trespass to obtain a vantage. A lawful order to clear an area is not an order to stop recording: move back, keep recording.

Indiana law-enforcement body-cam, dash-cam, and fixed-camera recordings are governed by the Access to Public Records Act (APRA) regime under Ind. Code 5-14-3-5.1 and Ind. Code 5-14-3-5.3, not by the wiretap chapter. The APRA regime sets release rules and a 280-day minimum retention floor (longer for footage capturing death, serious bodily injury, or use of deadly force). A member of the public may request inspection of a recording; an agency may seek a court order to prohibit or restrict release. The body-cam regime is distinct from Title 35 wiretap, because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations audible to bystanders in public. (c10)

Lapel microphone clipped to a charcoal blazer, evoking newsgathering and citizen audio-recording protected under ACLU v. Alvarez

Workplace Recording: Indiana Rule, NLRB Stericycle, and Bargaining-Session Limits

Indiana is an at-will employment state, and the participant-consent rule under Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-5 covers ordinary workplace conversations: a meeting between an employee and a supervisor, an HR call, a union-organizing discussion, or a coworker conversation in which the recorder is a participant. The recording itself does not violate the wiretap chapter. The harder questions are whether an employer can prohibit recording by policy and whether such a policy will withstand National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) review.

NLRB Stericycle Standard (2023)

In Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), the Board replaced the Boeing/LA Specialty Produce framework. Under Stericycle, an employer work rule (including a no-recording rule) is presumptively unlawful under Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA if a reasonable economically dependent employee could interpret the rule to chill protected concerted activity under Section 7. The burden then shifts to the employer to show that the rule advances a legitimate, narrowly tailored business interest. Blanket "no recording in the workplace" policies are vulnerable; narrow rules tailored to confidentiality of trade secrets, HIPAA-protected patient information, or specific safety-sensitive areas are more likely to survive. (r5)

NLRB GC 25-05 and GC 25-07 (2025 Currency Caveats)

NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-05 (Feb. 2025), issued by Acting General Counsel William Cowen, rescinded several Biden-era GC enforcement memoranda and signaled a return to Boeing-era prosecutorial discretion. GC 25-05 narrowed the practical reach of Stericycle without overruling it. The Board's Stericycle test remains good law; only the General Counsel's enforcement posture has shifted. Indiana employers drafting no-recording policies should still narrowly tailor the policies, document the legitimate business interest, and carve out Section 7 activity. (r6)

NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-07 (June 26, 2025) is narrowly scoped. It addresses surreptitious recording of NLRA collective-bargaining sessions, treating undisclosed recording by a bargaining party as potential evidence of bad-faith bargaining under Section 8(a)(5) (employers) or Section 8(b)(3) (unions). GC 25-07 is not a broad clarification of Stericycle and does not impose a notice requirement on workplace recording outside the bargaining-session context. (r7)

Practical Indiana Workplace Rules

For employees in Indiana, recording an HR meeting, a performance review, a disciplinary conversation, or a harassment incident in which you are a participant does not violate Ind. Code 35-33.5. An employer may still discipline you for violating a workplace recording policy, even where the recording itself is lawful. Recordings tied to protected concerted activity (discussing wages or working conditions with coworkers, organizing, talking to a union representative) are protected by NLRA Section 7, and employer discipline for that recording can be an unfair labor practice.

For employers, Indiana's one-party rule allows recording of customer service calls without notifying the customer (though customer-facing disclosure is best practice and may be required by industry-specific rules). A "no recording in the workplace" policy must be narrowly tailored under Stericycle and should explicitly preserve Section 7 rights. Surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions is bad-faith bargaining under GC 25-07. For a deeper treatment, see our explainer on whether an employer can record conversations without consent.

Hands typing on a mechanical keyboard from above, evoking the digital production of fabricated media reached by HEA 1133

Recording a Child's Conversation in Indiana

Indiana courts have recognized parental vicarious consent for recording a minor child's phone conversations, where the parent acts in good faith concern for the child's welfare. The doctrine flows from the broader guardianship framework at Ind. Code 29-3-3-3, which grants a parent or guardian general authority to act on behalf of a minor child, and from federal-court applications of the participant-consent doctrine to family settings. The Indiana Court of Appeals decision Apter v. Ross is sometimes cited for this proposition; readers should verify the precise reporter cite against courts.in.gov before relying on it in litigation.

The vicarious-consent doctrine has practical limits. The parent must be acting in good faith concern for the child, not to gather evidence in a custody dispute or to surveil an estranged spouse. The recording must reasonably relate to the child's welfare. The Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines, effective January 1, 2022, generally discourage parents from recording communications with the other parent, and family courts may treat such recordings unfavorably when assessing parental fitness. (c5)

If the child is conversing with a parent or guardian directly, the participant-consent rule under Ind. Code 35-31.5-2-176 may apply on its own terms, because the recording parent is a party to the conversation. The vicarious-consent doctrine matters only where the recording parent is not a participant in the conversation being recorded.

Law library reading room with brass lamp and books in soft focus, evoking the statutory framework for HEA 1047 intimate-image expansion

Indiana Deepfake and AI Recording Laws (HEA 1133 and HEA 1047)

Indiana enacted two AI-related recording statutes in the 2024 legislative session, both effective July 1, 2024. Together with the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, they form the operative legal regime for AI-generated audio, video, and imagery in Indiana.

HEA 1133 (P.L.83-2024): Deepfake Elections Civil Action

House Enrolled Act 1133 of 2024, enacted as Public Law 83-2024, was signed by Governor Eric Holcomb on March 13, 2024 (with a ceremonial signing March 12, 2024) and took effect July 1, 2024. It creates a private civil cause of action against any person who pays for or sponsors election-campaign communications containing "fabricated media" without a disclaimer that "Elements of this media have been digitally altered or artificially generated." (c11)

"Fabricated media" includes audio, video, or images of a candidate that have been altered without the depicted candidate's consent, or AI-generated imitations of a candidate. The statute permits depicted candidates and elected officials to sue for damages and injunctive relief. Enforcement is civil only. There is no criminal penalty, no Indiana Election Commission enforcement role, and no agency-issued takedown power; the operative remedy is a private lawsuit for damages and injunction. (c11)

For an overview from the Secretary of State's office, see the Indiana 2024 Election Legislation Summary. Indiana practitioners should cite HEA 1133 as Pub. L. 83-2024 (not 81-2024, which appears in some early secondary sources but is two digits off the correct number). (c12)

HEA 1047 (P.L.117-2024): AI Intimate-Image Expansion

House Enrolled Act 1047 of 2024, enacted as Public Law 117-2024, also took effect July 1, 2024. It expanded Ind. Code 35-45-4-8 (distribution of an intimate image) and the related provisions at Ind. Code 35-45-4-5 (voyeurism) to expressly include images created or altered by artificial intelligence or computer technology that realistically depict an identifiable person nude or engaged in sexual conduct. (c9, c13)

After HEA 1047, an Indiana defendant who circulates a deepfake nude image of an identifiable person, or who alters a real photograph through AI to depict the subject nude, faces the same Class A misdemeanor base penalty (up to 1 year jail; up to $5,000 fine) and Level 6 felony enhancement (with a prior unrelated conviction) as a defendant distributing an unaltered intimate image. The voyeurism amendment also reaches hidden-camera capture intended to produce intimate imagery of an identifiable person. (c9, c13)

Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Effective May 19, 2026)

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025, criminalizes the knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate imagery, including AI-generated "digital forgeries" (deepfakes). It also imposes a covered-platform notice-and-takedown obligation: covered platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours. The platform compliance obligation takes effect May 19, 2026. (r10)

Indiana victims of nonconsensual intimate imagery have a federal criminal remedy under the TAKE IT DOWN Act in addition to state remedies under Ind. Code 35-45-4-5 (voyeurism), Ind. Code 35-45-4-8 (intimate-image distribution as amended by HEA 1047), and civil invasion-of-privacy torts. For platform takedown remedies once the federal compliance window opens, see our DMCA takedown notice generator, which produces draft notices for use against covered platforms. (r10)

FCC 24-17 (AI Voice in Robocalls)

FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17, adopted February 8, 2024, classifies AI-generated voices in robocalls as "artificial or prerecorded voice" messages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Calling parties must obtain prior express written consent before placing AI-voice calls to wireless numbers and to residential lines for marketing. The ruling remains in force as of May 2026 and applies to all callers reaching Indiana numbers. (r11)

Wooden gavel resting on a sound block on a judge's bench, evoking the APRA court-order framework for releasing law-enforcement recordings

Indiana Law-Enforcement Body Cameras (APRA Regime)

Indiana law-enforcement body-cam, dash-cam, and fixed-camera recordings sit in a public-records framework distinct from the Title 35 wiretap chapter. The operative statutes are Ind. Code 5-14-3-5.1 (release of law-enforcement recordings under the Access to Public Records Act) and Ind. Code 5-14-3-5.3 (retention of law-enforcement recordings).

Under Ind. Code 5-14-3-5.1, a member of the public may request inspection of a law-enforcement recording. The agency may obtain a court order to prohibit or restrict release where release would compromise an investigation, endanger a witness, or otherwise harm a recognized public interest. Under Ind. Code 5-14-3-5.3, a recording must be retained for at least 280 days; the retention floor is longer where the recording captures death, serious bodily injury, or use of deadly force. (c10)

The APRA framework does not displace the wiretap chapter; it sits alongside it. A body-cam that captures audible bystander conversation in a public place does not violate Ind. Code 35-33.5 because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in conversation audible to bystanders in public. Citizens seeking body-cam footage of their own arrest should file an APRA request with the relevant agency; see the Indiana State Police Law Enforcement Recording Devices guidance. (c10)

Multi-State and Cross-Border Recording Issues

Indiana's neighbors are split on consent rules. When a call crosses state lines, courts typically apply the stricter state's law to avoid running afoul of the most restrictive applicable rule. Practitioners should treat any multi-state call as governed by the most protective state involved.

State	Consent Rule	Citation
Indiana	One-party	Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-5
Illinois	All-party	720 ILCS 5/14
Ohio	One-party	Ohio Rev. Code 2933.52
Kentucky	One-party	KRS 526.010
Michigan	Mixed (participant exception generally read in)	MCL 750.539c

The Illinois Eavesdropping Act, 720 ILCS 5/14, requires the consent of all parties to a private conversation. If any party to a call is in Illinois, an Indiana caller should treat the call as all-party-consent and either announce the recording or obtain explicit consent from every participant. Illinois courts have applied 720 ILCS 5/14 to calls touching Illinois regardless of where the recorder sits, particularly where the Illinois party had a reasonable expectation that the conversation was private. Conservative practice is to follow the strictest state's rule on any multi-state call. (r1)

Michigan's rule has been read by some courts to permit one-party consent on the theory that a participant cannot "eavesdrop" on a conversation they are part of, but the language of MCL 750.539c is closer to all-party consent on its face. Treat Michigan as risk-averse: get all-party consent if the rule may apply.

For a complete map of consent rules, see our list of one-party consent states and the counter-list of all-party consent states.

Federal Overlay: ECPA, FCC, NLRB, HIPAA, and Carrier Obligations

State recording law operates against a federal floor and a small number of federal regulatory overlays. Indiana's one-party rule matches the federal floor, so Indiana actors comply with the floor by complying with state law. Several federal overlays still impose independent obligations.

ECPA (18 U.S.C. 2510-2522)

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2522, is the federal one-party-consent floor. Section 2511(2)(d) makes it lawful for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties has given prior consent, unless the interception is for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Indiana's rule and the federal rule operate in parallel for ordinary participant recordings. (r1)

Federal investigators in Indiana follow the Department of Justice Justice Manual 9-7.302, which sets a federal one-party-consent default for consensual monitoring. State-law rules do not bind federal investigators acting under federal authorization. (r2)

FCC 24-17 and FCC 24-24 (Vacated)

FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (February 2024) classifies AI-generated voices in robocalls as artificial or prerecorded voice under the TCPA. Marketers calling Indiana numbers with AI voice must obtain prior express written consent. The ruling is active and in force. (r11)

The FCC's "One-to-One Consent" rule (FCC 24-24, codified at 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(10)) was VACATED by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025), with the mandate issuing April 30, 2025. The rule is no longer in force. The pre-existing TCPA prior-express-written-consent regime under 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(2) and (3) governs marketing robocalls and texts to Indiana numbers. Practitioners citing FCC 24-24 must always note the vacatur. (r12)

Stale Federal Citation: 47 C.F.R. 64.501

47 C.F.R. 64.501 (the legacy carrier "beep tone" recording-disclosure rule) was REMOVED effective November 20, 2017, when the FCC eliminated several legacy common-carrier recording rules in its biennial regulatory review. See 82 Fed. Reg. 48439 (Oct. 18, 2017). Do not cite 47 C.F.R. 64.501 as a live federal regulation. The current carrier disclosure framework lives in 47 C.F.R. Part 64, Subpart E. (r13)

CFPB Regulation F, HIPAA, and CALEA

12 C.F.R. Part 1006 (Regulation F) implements the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Reg F itself does not impose an affirmative two-party consent requirement, but consumer call recordings used as FDCPA evidence must satisfy the underlying state's consent rule. Indiana debt collectors need only one party's consent under Ind. Code 35-33.5-5-5; out-of-state collectors calling Indiana consumers from a two-party state must comply with the more protective state's rule. (r14)

The HIPAA Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. Part 164, binds Indiana covered entities (providers, plans, clearinghouses) and business associates. A patient may record their own medical visit under Indiana's one-party rule. A covered entity recording the patient needs HIPAA-compliant authorization, except where a treatment, payment, or healthcare-operations exception applies. Facility-access policies that bar third-party recording in clinical areas are facility rules, not HIPAA mandates. (r15)

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, 47 U.S.C. 1001-1010, imposes engineering obligations on telecommunications carriers to enable lawful court-ordered interception. CALEA does not authorize warrantless interception and does not change Indiana's one-party rule. (r16)

More Indiana Laws

Indiana Recording Laws by Topic

Each of the 12 pages below covers a specific Indiana recording-law context in greater depth than this hub can. Use them to drill into the rule that applies to your situation.

Sources and References

()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()