EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsIowa Laws flagIowa Laws
Iowa flag

Iowa

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

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of August 9, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed September 23, 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 9, 2026. · 29 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

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

Iowa is a one-party consent state under Iowa Code § 808B.2.2.c. If you are a party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication, you may record it without notifying anyone else. Recording a conversation you are not part of, without any party's consent, is a Class D felony. Illegal recording also triggers a civil lawsuit for damages.

Iowa recording law at a glance

QuestionAnswer
Consent ruleOne-party consent
Main statuteIowa Code § 808B.2.2.c
When recording is illegalNo party consents, OR participant records for a criminal, tortious, or injurious purpose
Criminal penaltyClass D felony (§ 808B.2.1): up to 5 years prison, $1,025 to $10,245 fine
Civil remedy§ 808B.8: greater of actual damages, $100/day, or $1,000 minimum; plus punitive damages and attorney fees
Hidden camerasVoyeurism (§ 709.21): aggravated misdemeanor; mandatory sex-offender registration
Recording policeRight not clearly established in the Eighth Circuit (Robbins v. City of Des Moines)

For deeper treatment of each topic, see the Iowa recording laws in depth section below.

Recording in-person conversations in Iowa

Iowa's one-party consent rule covers face-to-face conversations the same way it covers phone calls. As a participant, you may record without telling the other speakers, subject to the criminal/tortious/injurious-purpose limit at § 808B.2.2.c.

Both statutes only reach a conversation that qualifies as an "oral communication" in the first place. Iowa Code § 808B.1(8) defines that term as one "uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying that expectation." A conversation held in circumstances that do not support such an expectation, for example a loud exchange on a public sidewalk within easy earshot of passersby, falls outside the definition entirely. Recording that kind of conversation does not require even one-party consent, because there is no protected communication to intercept.

The older eavesdropping statute at Iowa Code § 727.8 also applies, but its participant carve-out at § 727.8.3.a exempts "the recording by a sender or recipient of a message or one who is openly present and participating in or listening to a communication." That language is broad enough to cover passive listeners who are physically present and openly listening, even if not speaking.

A non-participant who records faces felony exposure under § 808B.2.1 and misdemeanor exposure under § 727.8. Prosecutors typically charge the felony for serious violations and the misdemeanor for minor ones, giving them significant grading discretion.

The injurious-purpose limit: Iowa's departure from federal law

The consent defense at § 808B.2.2.c fails when a recording is made "for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act . . . or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act." The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) reaches only criminal or tortious purpose. Iowa adds a third category: any "injurious" purpose. A recording that would be lawful under federal law may not be lawful in Iowa if its purpose causes injury without amounting to a recognized tort or crime.

How far that third category reaches is unsettled. No Iowa appellate decision has defined the scope of the "other injurious act" language, so there is no controlling authority narrowing it and no reported case applying it to a particular recording. Treat it as an open risk rather than a settled boundary. Recording to document harassment for an HR complaint, preserve evidence of a verbal agreement, or protect yourself in litigation is not criminal or tortious, but whether an Iowa court would call any of it "injurious" has not been tested. Recording to humiliate, coerce, or retaliate is the conduct most obviously exposed to the limit.

The Iowa Supreme Court interpreted § 808B.2.2.c in State v. Spencer, 737 N.W.2d 124 (Iowa 2007), holding that a parent may vicariously consent to recording a minor child's telephone conversations, subject to motive and age review. Spencer remains the leading Iowa Supreme Court decision applying § 808B.2.2.c, but it addressed vicarious parental consent only and did not construe the injurious-purpose limit.

Two people at a cafe table with a smartphone lying face-down between their coffee mugs

Recording phone calls in Iowa

Iowa's one-party consent rule applies in full to phone calls: landline, cell, VoIP (Zoom, Teams, FaceTime), and conference calls. As a party to the call, you may record without notifying the other side. Iowa businesses may record customer calls for quality assurance or compliance because a business employee on the line is a participant.

Notice is not legally required in Iowa, but customer-facing businesses often include a "this call may be monitored or recorded" disclosure as a best practice, especially when calls cross into all-party-consent states.

Interstate calls: the Illinois risk

Iowa borders six states. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota are all one-party states. Illinois is the exception: it is one of the strictest all-party-consent states for private electronic communications under 720 ILCS 5/14-2. When any party to a call is in Illinois, the practical rule is to comply with the stricter state and obtain all-party consent before recording.

Other all-party-consent states an Iowa caller may reach include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Verify the destination state's current rule before recording any interstate call.

For a deeper walkthrough, see Iowa Phone Call Recording Laws.

two chairs across a round table in an office meeting room

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Visual recording in Iowa is governed differently from audio. There is no general one-party consent rule for video. Three statutes do the work.

Iowa Code § 709.21 (voyeurism). This statute, located in chapter 709 (Sexual Abuse), makes it an aggravated misdemeanor to knowingly view, photograph, or film another person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire when the person (1) does not or cannot consent, (2) is in a state of full or partial nudity, and (3) has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Conviction triggers mandatory sex-offender registration under § 692A.102. Some older coverage cites "§ 708.2A" as Iowa's voyeurism statute; that citation is wrong. Section 709.21 is the correct provision.

Iowa Code § 727.8A (camera-while-trespassing). A person who commits a predicate trespass under § 716.7 and knowingly places or uses a camera or electronic surveillance device on the trespassed property commits an aggravated misdemeanor on a first offense and a Class D felony on a second or subsequent offense. The Eighth Circuit rejected a facial First Amendment challenge to this statute's Use Provision in Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds, 89 F.4th 1071 (8th Cir. 2024), and held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge its Place Provision, discussed below.

Owner/lessee carve-outs. Outdoor home-security cameras and Ring doorbells are protected under two parallel carve-outs: § 808B.2.2.d (requires all-owner-or-lessee consent and a criminal-activity-prevention purpose) and § 727.8.3.c (requires digital video or audio capability, criminal-activity purpose, placement outside a dwelling and not in a shared hallway, on real property owned or leased by the person). A camera that satisfies both is clearly lawful. Indoor cameras in common areas (living room, kitchen) with no sexual purpose do not trigger § 709.21. They can still trigger § 808B.2 audio-interception exposure if they capture conversations of guests with no party present consenting, so video-only or muted-audio configuration is the safer approach.

For detailed treatment, see Iowa Security Camera Laws and Iowa Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws.

modern smart speaker device sitting on a kitchen countertop

Penalties for illegal recording in Iowa

Iowa's penalty structure separates criminal grading from civil remedies. The criminal side has two statutes at different grading levels; the civil side has two separate statutory regimes plus a common-law backstop.

StatuteOffenseClassMax PrisonFine Range
Iowa Code § 808B.2.1Willful interception, disclosure, or use of wire/oral/electronic communicationClass D felony5 years$1,025 to $10,245
Iowa Code § 727.8Eavesdropping without right or authoritySerious misdemeanor1 year$430 to $2,560
Iowa Code § 727.8A (first offense)Camera-while-trespassingAggravated misdemeanor2 years$855 to $8,540
Iowa Code § 727.8A (second or subsequent)Camera-while-trespassingClass D felony5 years$1,025 to $10,245
Iowa Code § 709.21Invasion of privacy by filming nudityAggravated misdemeanor2 years$855 to $8,540
Iowa Code § 708.7.1.a.5Harassment by dissemination of nude/sex-act imagery (including AI deepfakes)Aggravated misdemeanor2 years$855 to $8,540

Sharing or using an illegally intercepted recording knowing its origin is itself a Class D felony under § 808B.2.1.c and § 808B.2.1.d. The visual-privacy offenses at § 709.21 and § 708.7.1.a.5 carry mandatory § 692A sex-offender registration for actors 18 and older.

A First Amendment limit constrains disclosure liability for someone who played no role in the illegal interception. In Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court held that publishing an illegally intercepted communication is constitutionally protected where the publisher played no part in the interception, obtained the recording lawfully, and the content is a matter of public concern. A journalist or other third party who receives an Iowa recording made in violation of § 808B.2 but did not participate in the interception is not automatically exposed to liability under § 808B.2.1.c or § 808B.2.1.d if those conditions are met.

Civil damages: § 808B.8

The civil cause of action for unlawful audio interception is Iowa Code § 808B.8 (not § 808B.3, which is the court-order-for-special-agents provision and is not a private right of action). A prevailing plaintiff recovers the greater of (a) actual damages, (b) $100 per day of violation, or (c) $1,000 minimum, plus punitive damages on willful, malicious, or reckless violation, plus reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs, plus injunctive relief.

Civil damages: Iowa Code chapter 659A (intimate images)

Iowa Code chapter 659A is the Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act (enacted 2021). The remedy under § 659A.6.1 is the greater of actual economic and noneconomic damages (including emotional distress) or statutory damages not to exceed $10,000 per defendant, plus disgorgement of monetary gain, punitive damages, and attorney fees. The statute of limitations is 4 years from discovery under § 659A.7.1. The $10,000 figure is a cap on statutory damages, not a floor: a plaintiff with proven actual damages above $10,000 recovers that higher amount.

Common-law intrusion on seclusion

Iowa recognizes the tort of intrusion upon seclusion under Stessman v. American Black Hawk Broadcasting Co., 416 N.W.2d 685 (Iowa 1987). It is the backstop where § 808B.8 (audio only) and chapter 659A (intimate images only) do not reach. The limitations period is generally 2 years under § 614.1.2.

blank security access card on a navy lanyard on a white desk

Recording the police in Iowa

Iowa sits in the Eighth Circuit, which has not clearly established a First Amendment right to record police on a public sidewalk. This posture is less favorable to citizens than in most other circuits.

Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021). This is the most directly Iowa-relevant case. Daniel Robbins recorded illegally parked vehicles from a public sidewalk adjacent to the Des Moines Police Station. Officers detained, arrested, and seized his devices. The Eighth Circuit granted officers qualified immunity on his First Amendment retaliation claim because the right to record police in public was not clearly established in the circuit. The court reversed on Fourth Amendment grounds (no probable cause; unreasonable seizure), but the First Amendment outcome stands.

Molina v. Book, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023) reinforces Robbins, granting qualified immunity to officers who fired tear gas at two National Lawyers Guild legal observers near a protest. The same court let a third man's First Amendment retaliation claim proceed against the officers in the vehicle: he had followed it on a bicycle and shouted at the officers before a tear-gas canister allegedly hit him. Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020) offers the strongest citizen-side protection: passive observation of a traffic stop from 30 to 40 feet away is constitutionally protected, primarily on Fourth Amendment grounds. (The 40-to-50-foot figure belongs to Walker v. City of Pine Bluff, 414 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2005), a related case discussed within the Chestnut opinion.) Recording from a distance without interfering remains the safer posture even though it is not categorically guaranteed.

Practical guidance: comply with lawful time, place, and manner orders; do not interfere with police activity; record from a reasonable distance; and know that a Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure claim is stronger than a First Amendment retaliation claim in the Eighth Circuit.

For a deeper treatment, see Iowa Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in Iowa

Iowa Code § 727.8A and the ag-gag ruling (2024)

Iowa Code § 727.8A criminalizes camera placement or use by any trespasser on the trespassed property, with a predicate trespass under § 716.7. The statute reaches journalists, investigators, and activists as much as it does agricultural facilities. In Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds, 89 F.4th 1071 (8th Cir. 2024), the Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiffs' facial challenge fails because the statute has a plainly legitimate sweep, reversed the district court's summary judgment, vacated its permanent injunction, and remanded. The court assumed, without deciding, that using a camera while trespassing is First Amendment-protected activity, then applied intermediate scrutiny and held the statute's Use Provision narrowly tailored to Iowa's privacy and property interests. It separately held that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the statute's Place Provision, so that half of the law's constitutionality was not reached. As of June 2026 the statute is in force. Older coverage describing a "struck down" Iowa ag-gag law refers to the earlier § 717A.3A fraud statute, not § 727.8A.

Deepfake and AI intimate-image statutes (2024)

Iowa enacted two 2024 amendments. Iowa Code § 708.7.1.a.5, as amended by 2024 Acts, ch 1065, § 3, extends harassment-by-dissemination to AI-generated or altered visual depictions of identifiable adults: aggravated misdemeanor, mandatory § 692A sex-offender registration for actors 18 and older. Iowa Code § 728.12, as amended by Senate File 2243 (2024 Acts, ch 1015, effective July 1, 2024), treats synthetic AI depictions of identifiable minors equivalently to traditional child-exploitation imagery, with felony-level penalties. Section 728.12 was amended again by 2025 Acts, ch 50, § 1, which revised subsection 3.b (the rule for prosecuting a single visual depiction that shows multiple different minors, or multiple depictions of the same minor, as separate offenses); it did not change the AI-depiction definition in subsection 3.f.

Iowa victims also have a federal remedy under the TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025; covered-platform 48-hour notice-and-takedown effective May 19, 2026) and a state civil remedy under chapter 659A.

Body-worn cameras and open records

Iowa has no statewide body-worn camera mandate. Chapter 80F is the peace officer bill of rights governing internal investigations, not a body-cam law. Body-cam, dash-cam, and fixed-camera footage is subject to Iowa Code chapter 22 (Examination of Public Records). In the Klein matter, the Iowa Public Information Board concluded that the 911 call, bodycam video, and dashcam video from a police shooting were confidential "peace officers' investigative reports" under § 22.7(5). In Klein v. Iowa Public Information Board (Iowa 2021), the Iowa Supreme Court did not decide that question: it held that Klein could seek judicial review of the Board's decision but lacked standing as to records already made public and was not eligible for declaratory relief, and it directed the district court on remand to address the production of any dashcam video and 911 calls.

Federal overlay

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 to 2522, is the federal one-party-consent floor. Iowa's § 808B.2.2.c matches it for participant consent but adds the broader injurious-purpose limit. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 2024) treats AI-generated voices as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA; Iowa consumers have a federal TCPA cause of action ($500 per call, $1,500 for willful violations) for AI-voice robocalls received without consent. HIPAA's Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. Part 164, binds Iowa covered entities, not patients: a patient may record their own medical visit under § 808B.2.2.c.

Workplace recording and NLRB

An Iowa employee who is a party to a workplace conversation may record it under § 808B.2.2.c. Under NLRB Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), a workplace no-recording policy is presumptively unlawful under Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA unless narrowly tailored to a legitimate business interest. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) bars surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se good-faith violation. Iowa is a right-to-work state under Iowa Code chapter 731, but right-to-work status does not exempt Iowa employers from NLRA exposure on recording-policy questions.

  • January 8, 2024: Eighth Circuit rejected the facial First Amendment challenge to Iowa Code § 727.8A's Use Provision in Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds, 89 F.4th 1071, vacating the district court's permanent injunction and applying intermediate scrutiny after assuming the conduct was First Amendment-protected. The court held plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the statute's separate Place Provision.
  • July 1, 2024: Iowa Code § 728.12 amendment (Senate File 2243) took effect, treating AI-generated depictions of identifiable minors as child-exploitation imagery.
  • 2025: Iowa Code § 728.12 amended again by 2025 Acts, ch 50, § 1, revising the separate-offense prosecution rule for visual depictions showing multiple minors (subsection 3.b). The AI-depiction definition in subsection 3.f was not changed.
  • 2024: Iowa Code § 708.7.1.a.5 amended by 2024 Acts, ch 1065, § 3, to cover AI-generated or altered intimate imagery of identifiable adults.
  • May 19, 2025: TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12) signed; 48-hour platform takedown obligation effective May 19, 2026.
  • January 24, 2025: The Eleventh Circuit vacated the FCC's one-to-one consent rule, Part III.D of the FCC's 2023 Second Report and Order, 38 FCC Rcd. 12247, in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303; the pre-existing TCPA prior-express-written-consent regime governs.

Iowa recording laws in depth

The 12 pages below cover specific Iowa recording contexts in greater depth than this hub.

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Iowa 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 Iowa attorney.

More Iowa Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Iowa is a one-party consent state under Iowa Code § 808B.2.2.c. A participant in a wire, oral, or electronic communication can record without telling anyone else, as long as the recording is not made for a criminal, tortious, or other injurious purpose. Iowa adds that third 'injurious purpose' category, making its consent defense slightly narrower than the federal ECPA baseline at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), which only bars criminal or tortious purpose.

Can I record a phone call in Iowa?

Yes, if you are a party to the call. Iowa Code § 808B.2.2.c lets you record without notifying the other side. The main risk is interstate calls: Illinois, which borders Iowa, is an all-party-consent state under 720 ILCS 5/14-2. If any party is in Illinois, comply with the stricter Illinois rule and obtain all-party consent before recording.

Is recording someone in Iowa a felony?

It can be. Willful interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication without consent under Iowa Code § 808B.2.1 is a Class D felony: up to 5 years prison and a fine of $1,025 to $10,245. The older eavesdropping statute at § 727.8 is a serious misdemeanor (up to 1 year, $430 to $2,560). Prosecutors choose which to charge based on the severity of the conduct.

What can I sue for if someone illegally recorded me in Iowa?

Under Iowa Code § 808B.8, you can recover the greater of your actual damages, $100 per day of the violation, or $1,000 minimum, plus punitive damages if the violation was willful or reckless, plus attorney fees. If intimate images were involved, chapter 659A adds a separate claim with actual damages or up to $10,000 in statutory damages per defendant, a 4-year statute of limitations from discovery, and additional punitive damages and fees.

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in Iowa?

Outdoor cameras are expressly protected by two carve-outs: Iowa Code § 727.8.3.c (monitoring-device exemption for cameras placed outside a dwelling, not in shared hallways, on your own property for criminal-activity prevention) and § 808B.2.2.d (owner-lessee surveillance carve-out requiring all-owner consent). Nanny cams pointed at common interior areas are generally fine if no sexual purpose applies. Audio capture of guests with no participant present to consent can trigger § 808B.2 wiretap exposure.

Can I record the police in Iowa?

The right is not clearly established in the Eighth Circuit. Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021), arose in Iowa and granted qualified immunity to officers who stopped a citizen recording on a public sidewalk outside the Des Moines Police Station. Recording from a reasonable distance without interfering with police activity is the safer practical approach. Officers may not seize your phone without a warrant or recognized exception.

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

Generally yes for audio, because Iowa is a one-party state and an employee in the room is a party under § 808B.2.2.c. Exceptions: an employer can adopt a no-recording policy, but under NLRB Stericycle (372 NLRB No. 113, 2023) such policies must be narrowly tailored to avoid chilling Section 7 rights. Iowa's right-to-work status under chapter 731 does not exempt Iowa employers from NLRA exposure.

Does Iowa have a law against AI deepfakes?

Yes. Iowa Code § 708.7.1.a.5, amended by 2024 Acts, ch 1065, § 3, covers AI-generated or altered intimate imagery of identifiable adults as first-degree harassment: an aggravated misdemeanor with mandatory sex-offender registration. Iowa Code § 728.12, amended by Senate File 2243 (effective July 1, 2024), treats synthetic AI depictions of identifiable minors as child-exploitation imagery. Federal protection also now exists under the TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025).

Updates

Corrected the descriptions of Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds, Molina v. Book, and Klein v. Iowa Public Information Board to what each court actually decided.

Corrected the date of the Eleventh Circuit decision vacating the FCC one-to-one consent rule to January 24, 2025 and identified the case, and rewrote the discussion of Iowa's "other injurious act" limit to state that no Iowa appellate decision has defined its scope rather than implying courts read it narrowly.

Removed a fabricated claim that the Eighth Circuit's Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds ruling acknowledged a circuit split with the Seventh and Tenth Circuits, and replaced it with what the opinion actually held (the camera-while-trespassing statute's Use Provision was upheld under intermediate scrutiny; its Place Provision was not decided for lack of standing). Added a note that Iowa Code 728.12 was amended again in 2025 after the 2024 AI-depiction change already described. Corrected a case-citation distance figure in the police-recording section (Chestnut v. Wallace involved 30-40 feet, not 40-50 feet, which is a different case's fact pattern).

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 for readability: condensed dual-statute audio framework into focused sections, tightened penalties table, consolidated special topics (ag-gag, deepfakes, body cameras, federal overlay, workplace NLRB) into short subsections, added in-depth index linking all 12 Iowa sub-pages, refreshed FAQ (8 plain-language questions), preserved all verified statutes and case citations from the 2026-05-10 audit. No substantive law changes found on re-verification against legis.iowa.gov and law.cornell.edu primary sources.

Refresh: Anchored Iowa's bifurcated audio-statute structure with separate H2s for Iowa Code § 808B.2 (federal-style ECPA wiretap, Class D felony, up to 5 years prison and $1,025 to $10,245 fine under § 902.9.1.e) and Iowa Code § 727.8 (older 1976-era eavesdropping prohibition, serious misdemeanor, up to 1 year jail and $430 to $2,560 fine under § 903.1.1.b). Surfaced § 808B.2.2.c 'or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act' carve-out as broader than the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act limit at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). Corrected civil cause of action to § 808B.8 with $1,000 or $100 per day floor (the prior baseline cited § 808B.3 and a $10,000 figure; § 808B.3 is the court-order-for-special-agents provision and the $10,000 figure is the chapter 659A intimate-image statutory damages CAP, not the § 808B.8 audio-interception floor). Corrected voyeurism statute to § 709.21 in chapter 709 Sexual Abuse (the prior baseline cited § 708.2A, which does not serve that function). Added Iowa Code § 727.8A camera-while-trespassing (aggravated misdemeanor first offense, Class D felony second or subsequent) and the controlling 8th Circuit decision in Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds, 89 F.4th 1071 (8th Cir. 2024) (No. 22-3464), decided January 8, 2024, which UPHELD § 727.8A and recognized the open circuit split with 7th and 10th Circuits. Added State v. Spencer, 737 N.W.2d 124 (Iowa 2007) as the controlling Iowa Supreme Court interpretation of § 808B.2.2.c, recognizing parental vicarious consent for minor child recordings subject to motive and age review. Added Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021) (arose in Iowa at the Des Moines Police Station, qualified immunity granted because right to record police on a public sidewalk was not clearly established), Molina v. Book, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023) (rehearing en banc denied 65 F.4th 994; cert denied No. 23-227), and Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020) (passive observation protected on 4th Amendment grounds), framing the right to record police as NOT clearly established in the 8th Circuit. Added 2024 Iowa deepfake amendments: § 708.7.1.a.5 (2024 Acts, ch 1065, § 3) for adult AI-NCII as first-degree harassment with mandatory § 692A registration, and § 728.12 (Senate File 2243, 2024 Acts, ch 1015, effective July 1, 2024) for minor-victim AI exploitation. Added Iowa Code chapter 659A Uniform Civil Remedies for Unauthorized Disclosure of Intimate Images Act ($10,000 statutory damages cap per defendant, 4-year statute of limitations from discovery under § 659A.7.1). Clarified Iowa has NO statewide body-worn camera mandate; replaced any chapter 80F body-cam framing with chapter 22 plus § 22.7(5) plus Klein v. Iowa Public Information Board (Iowa 2022) plus IPIB advisory opinions 22AO:0002, 23AO:0003, and 24AO:0014. Added Stessman v. American Black Hawk Broadcasting Co., 416 N.W.2d 685 (Iowa 1987) intrusion-on-seclusion tort backstop. Added Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) plus GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) plus GC 25-07 (June 26, 2025) workplace overlay, with note on Iowa's right-to-work status under chapter 731. Updated FCC One-to-One Consent Rule (FCC 24-24) status to vacated by 11th Cir. Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC (mandate Apr. 30, 2025); removed reliance on stale 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 (removed effective Nov. 20, 2017). Added federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025; covered-platform 48-hour notice-and-takedown effective May 19, 2026, 9 days from publication). Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with legis.iowa.gov, iowacourts.gov, ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov, ipib.iowa.gov, and uscode.house.gov primary sources.

Refresh: Anchored Iowa's bifurcated audio-statute structure with separate H2s for Iowa Code § 808B.2 (federal-style ECPA wiretap, Class D felony, up to 5 years prison and $1,025 to $10,245 fine under § 902.9.1.e) and Iowa Code § 727.8 (older 1976-era eavesdropping prohibition, serious misdemeanor, up to 1 year jail and $430 to $2,560 fine under § 903.1.1.b). Surfaced § 808B.2.2.c 'or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act' carve-out as broader than the federal [Electronic Communications Privacy Act](/us-laws/federal-recording-laws/what-is-the-ecpa) limit at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). Corrected civil cause of action to § 808B.8 with $1,000 or $100 per day floor (the prior baseline cited § 808B.3 and a $10,000 figure; § 808B.3 is the court-order-for-special-agents provision and the $10,000 figure is the chapter 659A intimate-image statutory damages CAP, not the § 808B.8 audio-interception floor). Corrected voyeurism statute to § 709.21 in chapter 709 Sexual Abuse (the prior baseline cited § 708.2A, which does not serve that function). Added Iowa Code § 727.8A camera-while-trespassing and the controlling 8th Circuit decision in Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds, 89 F.4th 1071 (8th Cir. 2024). Added State v. Spencer, 737 N.W.2d 124 (Iowa 2007) as controlling Iowa Supreme Court interpretation of § 808B.2.2.c. Added Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021), Molina v. Book, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023), and Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020) framing the right to record police as not clearly established in the 8th Circuit. Added 2024 Iowa [deepfake](/us-laws/deepfake-laws) amendments, Iowa Code chapter 659A, body-camera access rules under chapter 22 and Klein v. Iowa Public Information Board (Iowa 2021), Stericycle workplace overlay, and the TAKE IT DOWN Act. Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with legis.iowa.gov, iowacourts.gov, ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov, media.ca8.uscourts.gov, and uscode.house.gov primary sources.

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

Sources and References

  1. legis.iowa.gov.gov
  2. legis.iowa.gov.gov
  3. legis.iowa.gov.gov
  4. legis.iowa.gov.gov
  5. legis.iowa.gov.gov
  6. iowacourts.gov.gov
  7. legis.iowa.gov.gov
  8. legis.iowa.gov.gov
  9. ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov.gov
  10. legis.iowa.gov.gov
  11. uscode.house.gov.gov
  12. legis.iowa.gov.gov
  13. congress.gov.gov
  14. Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds, 89 F.4th 1071 (8th Cir. 2024)(ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov).gov
  15. ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov.gov
  16. ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov.gov
  17. legis.iowa.gov.gov
  18. legis.iowa.gov.gov
  19. legis.iowa.gov.gov
  20. iowacourts.gov.gov
  21. ipib.iowa.gov.gov
  22. legis.iowa.gov.gov
  23. legis.iowa.gov.gov
  24. legis.iowa.gov.gov
  25. docs.fcc.gov.gov
  26. nlrb.gov.gov
  27. nlrb.gov.gov
  28. legis.iowa.gov.gov
  29. ecfr.gov.gov
  30. Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025)(media.ca11.uscourts.gov)
Share: