Kansas Recording Laws (2026): K.S.A. 21-6101

Quick Answer: Is Kansas a One-Party or Two-Party Consent State?

Kansas is a one-party consent state. Under K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(1), it is a crime to intercept "a message by telephone, telegraph, letter or other means of private communication" without "the consent of the sender or receiver." Either party's consent is enough. A participant in the call or conversation can record it without telling anyone else.

The Kansas Supreme Court settled the rule in State v. Roudybush, 235 Kan. 834, 686 P.2d 100 (1984). The defendant Roudybush had a face-to-face conversation with a police informant who wore a body transmitter. The court held that the Kansas wiretap and breach-of-privacy statute requires only one party's consent and analogized to the federal one-party rule under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c). Once the informant (one party) consented to the recording, Roudybush as the non-consenting party had no standing to challenge admission. K.S.A. 21-4001 was renumbered to K.S.A. 21-6101 effective July 1, 2011, and the one-party-consent construction migrated with the renumbering.

Key Point	Answer
Consent rule	One-party
Can you record your own calls?	Yes
Must you tell the other party?	No
Primary criminal statute	K.S.A. 21-6101 (breach of privacy)
Controlling case	State v. Roudybush, 235 Kan. 834 (1984)
Civil remedy statute	K.S.A. 22-2518
Misdemeanor cap (a)(1) to (a)(5)	1 year jail; $2,500 fine
Felony tiers (a)(6) to (a)(8)	Severity level 8 (first); level 5 (repeat or dissemination)
AI deepfake amendment	SB 186 of 2025 (L. 2025 ch. 120 sec. 3); effective July 1, 2025
Body-camera regime	K.S.A. 45-254 (KORA)
Federal floor	18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) (one-party)

Federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) is also a one-party-consent rule. Kansas's framework matches the federal floor for participant recording. Two-party-consent states such as California, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Washington apply stricter rules to interstate calls; the practical compliance posture is to follow the strictest applicable law when a call crosses state lines.

K.S.A. 21-6101 Breach of Privacy: What the Statute Covers

Kansas does something unusual. Most states bifurcate wiretapping, hidden cameras, voyeurism, and intimate-image laws across multiple chapters. Kansas consolidates them into one statute. K.S.A. 21-6101 defines "breach of privacy" as eight numbered subsections of conduct, with two penalty tiers and a recent AI-deepfake addition.

Subsections (a)(1) through (a)(5): Class A nonperson misdemeanor

The audio and surveillance core of the statute lives in subsections (a)(1) through (a)(5). Each of these is a Class A nonperson misdemeanor under K.S.A. 21-6101(b), carrying up to 1 year in county jail under K.S.A. 21-6602(a)(1) and up to a $2,500 fine under K.S.A. 21-6611(b)(1).

• (a)(1) Telephone interception. Knowingly and without lawful authority intercepting a message by telephone, telegraph, letter, or other means of private communication, without the consent of the sender or receiver. This is the one-party-consent prong.
• (a)(2) Downstream disclosure. Divulging the existence or contents of an illegally intercepted message when the discloser knows it was illegally intercepted, or learned of it through employment with a transmission agency.
• (a)(3) Surreptitious entry. Entering with the intent to listen surreptitiously to private conversations or to observe the personal conduct of any person entitled to privacy.
• (a)(4) Private-place device. Installing or using inside or outside a private place any device for hearing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds originating in that place that would not ordinarily be audible outside, without the consent of the persons entitled to privacy.
• (a)(5) Tap-the-line device. Installing or using any device for the interception of any telephone, telegraph, or other wire or wireless communication without the consent of the person in possession or control of the facilities.

A "private place" under K.S.A. 21-6101(f) is a location where a person may reasonably expect to be safe from uninvited intrusion or surveillance. Bathrooms, locker rooms, bedrooms, and private offices used for personal calls are core examples.

Subsections (a)(6) and (a)(7): voyeurism, no separate statute

Kansas does not have a separate stand-alone voyeurism statute. The hidden-camera-on-an-undressed-person crime is consolidated into K.S.A. 21-6101.

• (a)(6) Voyeurism capture. Without consent, knowingly photographing, videotaping, filming, or otherwise digitally recording or capturing an image of an identifiable person who is nude or in a state of undress, for the purpose of viewing the body or undergarments or for sexual gratification, under circumstances in which the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Severity level 8 person felony on a first offense; severity level 5 person felony on a second or subsequent conviction within five years.
• (a)(7) Voyeurism dissemination. Disseminating any videotape, photograph, film, or image obtained in violation of (a)(6). Severity level 5 person felony outright.

This consolidation matters when comparing Kansas to peer states. Some states pull voyeurism into a sex-crimes chapter (for example, NMSA 30-9-20 in New Mexico). In Kansas, the voyeurism crime sits inside the same "breach of privacy" section as the wiretap prohibition.

Subsection (a)(8): non-consensual intimate images, expanded by SB 186

Subsection (a)(8) reaches dissemination of intimate images of an identifiable adult without consent, with intent to harass, threaten, or intimidate. Severity level 8 person felony on a first offense; severity level 5 person felony on a second or subsequent conviction within five years.

Senate Bill 186 of 2025 expanded (a)(8) to cover AI-altered and digitally modified images. The full AI-deepfake mechanics are below in the dedicated SB 186 section.

Sentencing-grid ranges depend on criminal-history score

The felony numbers in this statute are not flat sentences. Severity-level felonies are sentenced under the K.S.A. 21-6804 nondrug sentencing grid, and the actual sentence depends on the defendant's criminal-history score. Typical ranges: severity level 8 runs roughly 7 to 23 months, with presumptive probation in some grid blocks; severity level 5 runs roughly 31 to 136 months, with presumptive imprisonment.

Recording Phone Calls and Electronic Communications in Kansas

You can record any phone call you participate in under K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(1). The statute requires only the sender's or receiver's consent. The recorder is normally one of those parties. This rule covers:

• Landline calls
• Mobile calls
• VoIP and softphone calls (Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, FaceTime audio, WhatsApp voice)
• Cloud and PBX recordings of calls a Kansas participant makes
• Voicemail messages left for or by a Kansas participant

K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(5) reaches a different problem: someone installing a tap, splitter, or recording device on the line without the consent of the person who controls the facilities. That is a Class A nonperson misdemeanor regardless of whether either of the speakers consented.

Federal ECPA overlay

Federal law tracks the Kansas rule. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) makes it lawful for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when the person is a party to the communication or when one of the parties has given prior consent, unless the interception is for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.

Federal investigators in the District of Kansas (Topeka, Kansas City, Wichita) follow the DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302 one-party-consent default for warrantless consensual monitoring, subject to JM internal-approval rules for sensitive cases involving Members of Congress, attorneys, or members of the news media.

Business call recording in Kansas

A Kansas business that is a party to a call (incoming customer service, outbound sales, internal one-on-one) may record under K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(1) without notice to the other party. Many businesses still announce the recording or use a periodic beep tone, for two reasons:

1. Multistate reach. Calls that touch California, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington, or another all-party-consent state require disclosure to every party as a practical compliance matter.
2. Federal robocall and AI-voice rules. Marketing calls and texts are governed by the TCPA and FCC rules separately from any state recording law.

FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (released February 2024) classifies AI-generated and voice-cloned calls as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA, requiring prior express written consent for marketing calls to wireless numbers and to residential lines. The FCC's separate "One-to-One Consent Rule" (FCC 24-24) 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 FCC formally removed the rule. Do not rely on FCC 24-24 as in force.

47 C.F.R. § 64.501 (the old carrier recording-disclosure rule) was removed effective November 20, 2017 by the FCC's Modernizing Common Carrier Rules order. Kansas businesses should rely on K.S.A. 21-6101 and the residual 47 C.F.R. Part 64 framework for current obligations.

In-Person Conversations and the Reasonable-Expectation-of-Privacy Test

Kansas courts apply K.S.A. 21-6101 to in-person oral conversations. State v. Roudybush itself involved a face-to-face exchange recorded by a body transmitter worn by an informant. A Kansan who is a participant in a conversation can lawfully record it under (a)(1).

Two prongs of K.S.A. 21-6101 are different. Subsection (a)(3) makes it a crime to enter a place with intent to listen surreptitiously to private conversations or observe the personal conduct of others entitled to privacy. Subsection (a)(4) makes it a crime to install or use a device for hearing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds originating in a private place, without the consent of the persons entitled to privacy. Both reach non-participant surveillance, not participant recording.

Public-place recording is generally lawful

A conversation in a public sidewalk, park, restaurant dining room, retail store, public-meeting hallway, or on a public-transit platform is normally outside K.S.A. 21-6101 because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Audio recording at the next table or on the next bench is lawful for a person in the same public place. Harassment and stalking statutes can still reach abusive conduct.

Hidden microphones in private places are illegal

A common scenario: someone plants a recorder in a bedroom, bathroom, hotel room, or private office and walks away. Even if a participant later returns and uses the room, the install-and-leave conduct is reached by K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(4) because the device was installed in a private place without the consent of the persons entitled to privacy. The participant exception under (a)(1) does not save the conduct.

For in-person hidden-microphone scenarios that fall outside the wire/oral/electronic scope of the civil statute, plaintiffs can also rely on Kansas common-law intrusion upon seclusion, recognized in Werner v. Kliewer, 238 Kan. 289, 710 P.2d 1250 (1985) and Froelich v. Adair, 213 Kan. 357, 516 P.2d 993 (1973). Damages include actual damages, emotional distress, and punitive damages where malice or wanton disregard is shown. The personal-injury limitations period under K.S.A. 60-513(a)(4) applies.

Hidden Cameras, Voyeurism, and Intimate-Image Recordings

The hidden-camera prohibition is K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(6). It reaches knowingly photographing, videotaping, filming, or otherwise digitally recording or capturing an image of an identifiable person who is nude or in a state of undress, for the purpose of viewing the body or undergarments or for sexual gratification, under circumstances in which the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The capture offense is a severity level 8 person felony on a first offense and a severity level 5 person felony on a second or subsequent conviction within five years. Dissemination of the captured material under (a)(7) is a severity level 5 person felony outright, even on a first offense.

The reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test is fact-specific. Bathrooms, dressing rooms, hotel rooms, locker rooms, gym showers, exam rooms, and private bedrooms are core examples. The same person walking on a public sidewalk fully clothed has no comparable expectation. A camera recording everyone walking past a storefront is not a (a)(6) violation; a camera hidden in a department-store fitting room aimed at customers undressing is.

Subsection (a)(7) imposes a higher penalty (severity level 5) on dissemination than on capture (severity level 8 first offense). Kansas law treats the distribution of voyeurism material as more harmful than the original capture. Sharing on social media, messaging apps, cloud-storage links, peer-to-peer networks, dark-web sites, or print all qualify.

For business and family scenarios where a recording subject's likeness will be used for marketing, training, or publicity, ensure consent through a photo or video consent form. For Kansas-specific surveillance-camera placement (residential, commercial, doorbell), see our Kansas surveillance camera laws spoke. For the broader video-recording legal frame, see is it illegal to video record someone without their consent.

AI-Generated and Altered Intimate Images: SB 186 (Effective July 1, 2025)

Senate Bill 186 of 2025, enacted as Chapter 120 of the 2025 Session Laws of Kansas, was signed by Governor Laura Kelly on April 24, 2025. Section 3 of the act amended K.S.A. 2024 Supp. 21-6101(a)(8). The amendment took effect upon publication in the statute book; July 1, 2025 in the printed bound volume per ordinary Kansas publication schedule.

What changed in (a)(8)

Before SB 186, K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(8) reached dissemination of authentic intimate images of an identifiable adult without consent. After SB 186, it expressly reaches dissemination of any image of an identifiable adult that has been "created, in whole or in part, altered or modified by artificial intelligence or any digital means to appear to depict or purport to depict such identifiable person, regardless of whether such identifiable person was involved in the creation of the original image."

That last clause is doing significant work. Liability attaches even if the person depicted never sat for any original image. Synthetic content woven from training-set inputs, face-swapped onto another body, or generated entirely from text prompts is reached when it identifies a real person, depicts nudity or sexual activity, is disseminated with intent to harass, threaten, or intimidate, and is shared without that person's consent.

Penalty tier

Severity level 8 person felony on a first offense. Severity level 5 person felony on a second or subsequent conviction within five years. Sentencing under K.S.A. 21-6804 depends on criminal-history score. Severity level 5 is presumptive imprisonment in most grid blocks.

Other SB 186 changes

SB 186 also added a narrow cable-services exception to breach of privacy, modified the elements of sexual exploitation of a child and unlawful transmission of a visual depiction of a child to reach AI-generated and morphed images of minors, and amended K.S.A. 22-2302 regarding probable-cause affidavits and bond requirements for sex offenses.

Federal layer: TAKE IT DOWN Act

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12) was signed May 19, 2025. The criminal provisions took effect on signature. The platform notice-and-takedown obligation takes effect May 19, 2026. Covered platforms must honor a 48-hour takedown of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions and AI "digital forgeries" once a verified victim notice is received. The Federal Trade Commission enforces the platform-takedown obligation.

Kansas victims of AI-deepfake intimate imagery now have a layered remedy stack: state criminal prosecution under K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(8) as amended by SB 186, federal criminal prosecution under the TAKE IT DOWN Act, FTC complaint for platform non-compliance, and a civil claim under K.S.A. 22-2518 or common-law intrusion upon seclusion (depending on the underlying capture or interception). For platform takedowns of unauthorized images, see our DMCA takedown notice generator for a starting workflow.

Criminal Penalties: Misdemeanor vs Felony Severity Levels

Kansas's K.S.A. 21-6101 has a bifurcated penalty structure. The audio core (a)(1) through (a)(5) is misdemeanor. The visual and intimate-image prongs (a)(6), (a)(7), and (a)(8) are felony, and the felony penalty depends on which subsection is charged and on the defendant's criminal-history score.

Subsection	Conduct	Classification	Penalty
(a)(1)	Telephone or wire interception without consent	Class A nonperson misdemeanor	Up to 1 year jail, up to $2,500 fine
(a)(2)	Downstream disclosure of illegal interception	Class A nonperson misdemeanor	Up to 1 year jail, up to $2,500 fine
(a)(3)	Surreptitious entry to listen or observe	Class A nonperson misdemeanor	Up to 1 year jail, up to $2,500 fine
(a)(4)	Private-place hearing or recording device	Class A nonperson misdemeanor	Up to 1 year jail, up to $2,500 fine
(a)(5)	Telephone or wire tap-the-line device	Class A nonperson misdemeanor	Up to 1 year jail, up to $2,500 fine
(a)(6) first	Hidden-camera capture of nude or undressed person	Severity level 8 person felony	Grid range typically 7 to 23 months under K.S.A. 21-6804, depending on criminal-history score
(a)(6) repeat within 5 years	Hidden-camera capture	Severity level 5 person felony	Grid range typically 31 to 136 months under K.S.A. 21-6804
(a)(7)	Dissemination of voyeurism imagery	Severity level 5 person felony	Grid range typically 31 to 136 months under K.S.A. 21-6804
(a)(8) first	NCII or AI-deepfake intimate-image dissemination	Severity level 8 person felony	Grid range typically 7 to 23 months under K.S.A. 21-6804
(a)(8) repeat within 5 years	NCII or AI-deepfake dissemination	Severity level 5 person felony	Grid range typically 31 to 136 months under K.S.A. 21-6804

The misdemeanor caps come from K.S.A. 21-6602(a)(1) (jail term) and K.S.A. 21-6611(b)(1) (fine). The felony grid ranges come from K.S.A. 21-6804, the Kansas nondrug sentencing grid. A criminal-history score from "I" (no prior person felony) to "A" (three or more person felonies) shifts the actual range significantly. Severity level 8 felonies are presumptive probation in some grid blocks; severity level 5 is presumptive imprisonment in most blocks.

A judge may also impose post-release supervision, restitution, no-contact orders, and (for sex-offense-classified subsections) Kansas Offender Registration Act (KORA) registration. The misdemeanor and felony exposure stacks separately from any civil liability under K.S.A. 22-2518.

Civil Damages for Illegal Recording in Kansas

Kansas's civil cause of action lives in K.S.A. 22-2518, the civil-remedy provision of the Kansas wiretap-procedure act. The statute sits in chapter 22 (criminal procedure), not alongside the substantive offense in chapter 21.

Damages structure

A person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, or used has a civil cause of action against the violator and is entitled to recover:

• Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 per day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater;
• Punitive damages; and
• A reasonable attorney fee plus other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

Read the formula carefully. The plaintiff recovers the greater of actual damages or the daily/minimum liquidated number. A long-running interception that produced minimal provable harm can still hit the $100-per-day floor for the full duration. A short-duration violation defaults to the $1,000 minimum. A serious harm (lost employment, marital breakdown, exposure of trade secrets) supports actual damages above the floor.

Defenses

Good-faith reliance on a court order is a complete defense to any civil or criminal action under the Kansas wiretap-procedure act. A law-enforcement officer or telecommunications provider acting under a facially valid Title III or Kansas state-court wiretap order is protected. The defense is express in K.S.A. 22-2518.

Statute of limitations

K.S.A. 22-2518 is silent on its own limitations period. The residual two-year personal-injury limitations period under K.S.A. 60-513(a)(4) most likely applies. The clock generally runs from the date the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered the violation.

Common-law fallback

Some recording scenarios do not fit neatly into the wire/oral/electronic communication scope of K.S.A. 22-2518. A hidden video camera that captures images but no audio, a stalking-style sequence of in-person encounters, or a non-communicative privacy intrusion may sit outside the statute. Kansas common-law intrusion upon seclusion, recognized in Werner v. Kliewer, 238 Kan. 289 (1985) and Froelich v. Adair, 213 Kan. 357 (1973), is the fallback. The same two-year limitations period under K.S.A. 60-513(a)(4) applies.

Recording Police and Public Officials in Kansas (Tenth Circuit)

Kansas sits in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which also covers Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, and the Yellowstone portions of Idaho and Montana. The Tenth Circuit's record-the-police law is best understood as a progression: Frasier first, then Irizarry.

Frasier v. Evans (2021): qualified immunity for August 2014 conduct

Frasier v. Evans, 992 F.3d 1003 (10th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 427 (2021), arose from an August 2014 incident in Denver. Levi Frasier filmed police using force during an arrest with his tablet. Officers cornered him after the arrest and searched the device for the video. Frasier sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation.

The Tenth Circuit held the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. In its view, the right to record on-duty police was not "clearly established" in the Tenth Circuit at the time of the August 2014 incident. The court declined to reach the underlying constitutional question and rejected the argument that internal Denver Police Department training could clearly establish a constitutional right for qualified-immunity purposes.

Irizarry v. Yehia (2022): clearly established as of May 2019

The picture changed one year later. Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022) arose from a May 2019 DUI traffic stop in Lakewood, Colorado. A YouTube journalist filming the stop was obstructed by Officer Yehia, who shined a flashlight into the camera and drove a police cruiser at the journalist.

The Tenth Circuit held that, as of May 2019, there was a clearly established First Amendment right to film the police performing official duties in public. The panel relied on the persuasive weight of authority from six other circuits that had recognized the right and on the Tenth Circuit's own decision in Western Watersheds Project v. Michael, 869 F.3d 1189 (10th Cir. 2017), which held that gathering data and information for use in speech is protected by the First Amendment. Officer Yehia was not entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment retaliation claim.

What this means for Kansas today

As applied to Kansas, the right to record on-duty police in public is now clearly established. An officer in Wichita, Topeka, Kansas City, Lawrence, Olathe, Overland Park, or anywhere else in Kansas is on notice that interfering with peaceful filming of police in public can support a Section 1983 First Amendment retaliation claim.

Practical limits remain:

• Do not interfere with the operation. Stay back a reasonable distance and avoid blocking officers, paramedics, or vehicles.
• Comply with lawful, content-neutral time/place/manner orders. Stepping back to a reasonable observation distance is not the same as ceasing to record.
• Do not trespass to get a better angle. The First Amendment right covers public space and places where the recorder is otherwise lawfully present.
• Dispatching a drone over a scene introduces FAA airspace and crime-scene-interference issues that are separate from the First Amendment recording right.

Police can still arrest a recorder for genuine obstruction, interference, disorderly conduct, or trespass. The arrest must be supported by independent probable cause unrelated to the act of recording.

Recording Public Meetings: The Kansas Open Meetings Act

The Kansas Open Meetings Act (KOMA), K.S.A. 75-4317 et seq., is a unique Kansas anchor for recording rights. Few competitor pages frame KOMA as a recording-rights statute, but the Kansas Attorney General does.

K.S.A. 75-4317(a) declares the public policy that "meetings for the conduct of governmental affairs and the transaction of governmental business be open to the public." K.S.A. 75-4318 generally requires open meetings of state and local public bodies that receive or expend public funds, including subordinate boards and committees. The Kansas Attorney General KOMA FAQ and the AG's July 2025 Citizen's Guide to Open Government confirm that attendees may audio- and video-record open public meetings, subject only to reasonable rules adopted by the public body to prevent disruption, address safety, or protect other legitimate interests. A public body cannot prohibit recording outright at an open meeting.

What you can record under KOMA

• City council and city commission meetings
• County commission meetings
• School board meetings (USD board of education)
• State boards, commissions, and policy-making bodies
• Subordinate boards, committees, and advisory groups that receive or expend public funds
• Public hearings before planning, zoning, and licensing bodies

KOMA exclusions

KOMA does not apply to:

• The Kansas Legislature itself, which is governed by separate constitutional and chamber rules.
• The courts, which follow Kansas Supreme Court Rule 1001 et seq. on courtroom recording (recording requires advance permission).
• Properly noticed executive sessions under K.S.A. 75-4319 (personnel matters, attorney-client privileged communications, real estate negotiations, employer-employee negotiations, and other enumerated categories).

Why K.S.A. 21-6101 does not block KOMA recording

K.S.A. 21-6101 reaches surreptitious interception of private communications, peeping or visual intrusion into private spaces, and intimate-image dissemination. None of those describe an open public meeting. The meeting is open to the public by statute, eliminating any reasonable expectation of privacy in the deliberations. Attendees are participants in or parties to the public proceeding for purposes of the breach-of-privacy analysis.

KOMA enforcement

K.S.A. 75-4320 imposes civil penalties up to $500 per individual member for knowing violations of KOMA. The AG Open Government Division and county and district attorneys have concurrent enforcement authority. Citizens may file complaints via the AG's online intake at ag.ks.gov.

Workplace Recording in Kansas: Employer and Employee Rights

Kansas is a one-party-consent state, so an employee who participates in a workplace conversation can lawfully record it under K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(1). An employer that is a party to a call, meeting, or in-person conversation can record without informing the other side.

The federal NLRA framework adds a second layer for private-sector employers. The National Labor Relations Board's decision in Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) replaced the Boeing categorical work-rule framework. To defend a no-recording or no-photography handbook rule against a Section 8(a)(1) facial challenge, an employer must show the rule advances a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a more narrowly tailored rule.

NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-05 (February 14, 2025) rescinded prior General Counsel enforcement memoranda and signaled a return to Boeing-era prosecutorial discretion on certain work-rule and remedy questions. GC 25-05 narrows the General Counsel's enforcement posture only. Stericycle remains binding Board precedent until the Board itself overrules it.

NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) declares surreptitious recording of NLRA collective-bargaining sessions a per se violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3) (duty to bargain in good faith), building on Bartlett-Collins Co., 237 NLRB 770 (1978). GC 25-07 is narrow. It does not change Kansas one-party consent for general workplace recording outside formal bargaining sessions, and it is not a Stericycle implementation memo.

Kansas right-to-work status does not strip NLRA coverage

Kansas is a right-to-work state under Article 15 § 12 of the Kansas Constitution and K.S.A. 44-808 et seq. Right-to-work limits union-security agreements; it does not remove NLRA Section 7 coverage. Private-sector employees at Spirit AeroSystems Wichita, Textron Aviation, Garmin Olathe, Cargill Wichita, Hill's Pet Nutrition, and other Kansas NLRA-covered employers retain Section 7 protected-concerted-activity rights, including the ability to record discussions of wages, hours, or working conditions when narrowly tailored employer rules permit.

Hidden microphones in private workplace areas remain illegal

The participant exception under K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(1) does not save an employer who installs a hidden microphone in a break room, restroom, locker room, or private office to capture employee conversations the employer is not part of. Subsection (a)(4) reaches the conduct, and intrusion upon seclusion under Froelich v. Adair supplies a parallel civil claim.

For a deeper dive on whether your employer can record you, see can an employer record conversations without consent.

Wearable recording devices in the Kansas workplace

Wearable AI voice recorders such as Plaud, Limitless Pendant, and similar devices, plus smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Bans, sit comfortably inside K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(1) when the wearer is a participant in the conversation. Audio capture is lawful. Video capture in common work areas is generally lawful. Video capture inside restrooms, locker rooms, or other private spaces violates K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(6). Employer policies may separately restrict recording devices in the workplace, and violating those policies can result in disciplinary action or termination even when the underlying recording is legal under Kansas law.

Kansas Law-Enforcement Body Cameras (KORA Regime)

Kansas's body-camera regime sits in K.S.A. 45-254 under the Kansas Open Records Act, not in the criminal-procedure or highway-patrol chapters.

K.S.A. 45-254 classifies body-camera and vehicle-camera recordings as criminal investigation records as defined in K.S.A. 45-217. The statute defines "body camera" as a device worn by a law enforcement officer that electronically records audio or video of the officer's activities. "Vehicle camera" means a device attached to a law-enforcement vehicle that records audio or video of officers' activities.

20-day access window for qualifying persons

A law-enforcement agency must provide an opportunity to listen to or view any such recording within 20 days after a request to qualifying persons:

• The subject of the recording.
• The parent or guardian of a minor subject.
• The attorney for any such person.
• Certain heirs of a deceased subject.

Agencies may charge a reasonable fee for the listening or viewing. Each agency must publish its retention and request policies on its public website. Evidentiary recordings must be retained for the same period applicable to other physical evidence in the case.

KORA enforcement penalties

K.S.A. 45-223 carries civil penalties of up to $500 per knowing violation and up to $5,000 for an intentional public-agency violation. The Kansas Attorney General KORA FAQ walks through the request and complaint process.

No statewide deployment mandate

Kansas does not have a statewide body-camera deployment mandate. Whether an officer wears a body camera is determined by each agency's policy. The K.S.A. 45-254 framework was enacted via SB 18 (2016) and substantively amended by L. 2018, ch. 95 (SB 361, the Police and Citizen Protection Act), which expanded the access framework for subjects and certain family members.

What K.S.A. 45-254 is not

K.S.A. 75-7710 lives in the highway-patrol fee chapter and is unrelated to body cameras. K.S.A. 22-3431 governs disposition of defendants committed for psychiatric evaluation and is also unrelated. Some older or third-party summaries cite those provisions for Kansas body-camera law. They are wrong. The correct citation is K.S.A. 45-254.

Interstate Calls: When Kansas's One-Party Rule Is Not Enough

Federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) is a one-party-consent floor. Kansas's K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(1) matches it. Interstate calls become tricky when the call touches a state with a stricter rule.

The all-party-consent and de facto two-party states include California, Connecticut (case-law extension), Delaware, Florida, Illinois (private settings), Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Several others (Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont) have nuanced rules that may impose a higher consent bar in specific scenarios.

When a Kansas-side caller speaks with someone in California, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, or Washington, the practical compliance posture is to follow the strictest applicable rule. Courts apply varying choice-of-law tests, and the more protective state's law often governs as a practical matter for the Kansas-side caller. The simplest fix is disclosure: announce the recording at the start of the call ("This call is being recorded for quality and training purposes") or use a periodic beep tone. Both methods satisfy all-party-consent statutes that allow recording with notice plus continued participation.

Kansas businesses with national customer footprints, debt-collection operations, or distributed sales teams should treat all outbound calls as potentially crossing into a stricter state's framework. The policy default of universal disclosure is cheaper than litigation under California Penal Code § 632 or Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act.

For a state-by-state breakdown, see two-party consent states and the parent hub United States recording laws.

Federal Overlay: ECPA, FCC, TCPA, and the TAKE IT DOWN Act

Federal law sits on top of Kansas's K.S.A. 21-6101 framework. The current federal stack as of May 2026:

ECPA (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522)

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is a one-party-consent floor for participant recording. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) makes participant recording lawful unless the interception is for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Federal investigators in the District of Kansas follow DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302 on warrantless consensual monitoring.

FCC 24-17 (AI voice in robocalls): IN FORCE

FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17, released February 8, 2024, classifies AI-generated and voice-cloned calls as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA, requiring prior express written consent for marketing calls to wireless numbers and to residential lines. Kansas consumers receiving AI-cloned-voice robocalls have a federal TCPA cause of action; the Kansas Attorney General participates in multistate robocall enforcement.

FCC 24-24 (One-to-One Consent Rule): VACATED

FCC 24-24, the One-to-One Consent Rule codified at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9), 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 FCC formally removed the rule. Do not rely on the "logically and topically associated" restriction as in force. The pre-rule version of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9) governs.

47 C.F.R. § 64.501: REMOVED in 2017

The old carrier recording-disclosure rule at 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 was removed effective November 20, 2017 by the FCC's Modernizing Common Carrier Rules order. Some older summaries still cite § 64.501 as a federal "beep tone" or disclosure rule. They are out of date.

CFPB Regulation F (12 C.F.R. Part 1006)

Regulation F implements the FDCPA. Reg F itself does not impose an affirmative two-party-consent rule on debt-collection call recording. Kansas debt collectors follow K.S.A. 21-6101 one-party consent. Out-of-state collectors calling Kansas consumers from a stricter state must comply with the more protective state's rule.

HIPAA Privacy Rule (45 C.F.R. Part 164)

The HIPAA Privacy Rule binds Kansas covered entities (the University of Kansas Health System, Stormont Vail Health, Ascension Via Christi, Children's Mercy Kansas City Kansas-side facilities, the Kansas City VA Medical Center, and others), not patients. A patient may record their own visit under K.S.A. 21-6101 one-party consent. A covered entity recording a patient needs HIPAA authorization. Facility-access policies barring third-party recording in clinical areas are not HIPAA mandates; they are private-property rules.

TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12)

The TAKE IT DOWN Act was signed May 19, 2025. The federal criminal prohibition on knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI digital forgeries, took effect on signature. The platform notice-and-takedown obligation takes effect May 19, 2026. Covered platforms must honor verified victim notices within 48 hours. The FTC enforces the platform-takedown obligation. The state-side companion in Kansas is K.S.A. 21-6101(a)(8) as amended by SB 186 of 2025.

CALEA (47 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1010)

The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act imposes engineering obligations on Kansas telecom carriers to enable lawful court-ordered interception. CALEA does not authorize warrantless interception. Kansas state-court wiretap orders under K.S.A. 22-2515 through 22-2520 (the Kansas Title III analog) rely on CALEA-mandated carrier capabilities.

FTC v. Ring (2023): consent for camera audio review

FTC v. Ring LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01549 (D.D.C. May 31, 2023) imposed $5.8 million in consumer redress and a comprehensive privacy program on Ring after findings that the company gave employees and contractors broad access to customer video without consent. Kansas households running Ring or comparable cloud-camera vendors and Kansas employers using third-party video-monitoring services should be aware that audio-capable smart cameras inside a home recording guests or service workers may trigger K.S.A. 21-6101 exposure when no party to the conversation consents.

Using Recordings as Evidence in Kansas Courts

A recording lawfully made under K.S.A. 21-6101's participant-consent rule is generally admissible in Kansas civil and criminal proceedings, subject to ordinary rules of evidence.

Hearsay framework: K.S.A. 60-460

K.S.A. 60-460 sets out the Kansas hearsay rule with enumerated exceptions. Common admissibility hooks for recordings include:

• Party-opponent statements (the recording captures the opposing party's own words).
• Then-existing state of mind, emotion, or physical condition.
• Business records made in the regular course.
• Present sense impression.

A recording that captures the speaker's own admission of liability, threats, or conduct is often admitted as a non-hearsay party-opponent statement under Kansas evidence law.

Authentication and reliability

The proponent must authenticate the recording as genuine and unaltered. Foundation testimony typically includes who made the recording, when and where, equipment used, chain of custody, and absence of editing. Modern phones and AI voice recorders create rich metadata that supports authentication.

Exclusionary rules

Recordings made in violation of K.S.A. 21-6101 are generally inadmissible in Kansas criminal proceedings. K.S.A. 22-2518 expressly excludes the contents of an intercepted communication offered as evidence in violation of the Kansas wiretap-procedure act. The good-faith-reliance-on-court-order defense under K.S.A. 22-2518 is the only express civil and criminal statutory defense.

Family-court considerations

Kansas family courts generally accept legally obtained recordings as evidence in custody, divorce, and protection-from-abuse cases. Recordings of children, recordings made by children of a parent, and recordings in a co-parenting context can raise additional admissibility and best-interests issues. A recording made in violation of a court order (a no-contact order, a protective order) may be excluded and may itself constitute contempt or a separate violation.

More Kansas Laws

• Kansas Surveillance Camera Laws
• Kansas Hit and Run Laws
• Kansas Car Seat Laws
• Kansas Statute of Limitations
• Kansas Dog Bite Laws
• Kansas Child Support Laws
• Kansas Lemon Laws
• Kansas Whistleblower Laws
• Kansas Sexting Laws

Legal Information Disclaimer: This page is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Kansas recording law, including K.S.A. 21-6101 (with the SB 186 of 2025 amendments at L. 2025 ch. 120 § 3), K.S.A. 22-2518, K.S.A. 21-6602, K.S.A. 21-6611, K.S.A. 21-6804, K.S.A. 45-254 and the KORA framework, K.S.A. 75-4317 et seq. (KOMA), and the Tenth Circuit's record-the-police progression in Frasier v. Evans and Irizarry v. Yehia, is fact-specific. Federal developments (TAKE IT DOWN Act, FCC actions, NLRB guidance) and any post-publication Kansas legislation may change the framework. If you face a specific legal situation involving recording in Kansas, consult a licensed Kansas attorney.