EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsKentucky Laws flagKentucky Laws
Kentucky flag

Kentucky

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

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of August 15, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed August 26, 202614 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 15, 2026. · 26 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

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

Kentucky is a one-party consent state under KRS 526.010 and KRS 526.020. A participant in a wire or oral communication, or anyone with at least one party's prior consent, may lawfully record. Surreptitious recording of a conversation to which you are not a party, with no party's consent, is criminal eavesdropping, a Class D felony, and exposes you to a federal civil lawsuit under ECPA.

Kentucky recording law at a glance

QuestionAnswer
Consent ruleOne-party consent
Main statute
When recording is illegalIntercepting a wire or oral communication of others without any party's consent
Criminal penaltyClass D felony: 1 to 5 years, $1,000 to $10,000 fine
Civil remedyFederal ECPA section 2520 + Kentucky common-law invasion of privacy (no state statutory damages)
Hidden camerasLegal outside private spaces; sexual-purpose video voyeurism is a Class A misdemeanor ()
Recording policePermitted under one-party consent; no binding Sixth Circuit First Amendment ruling

See the full analysis starting with Kentucky recording laws in depth below.

Recording in-person conversations in Kentucky

If you are part of a conversation, your participation supplies the required consent under . You do not need to announce that you are recording, obtain the other party's agreement, or play a beep tone. This covers one-on-one conversations, group meetings you attend, and any exchange in which you are an active participant.

The definition of "eavesdrop" in KRS 526.010 controls the analysis: it means overhearing, recording, amplifying, or transmitting any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one party. The phrase "of others" and the one-party carve-out together place a participant outside the offense entirely.

The privacy-expectation test that recording guides often attach to this analysis is federal, not Kentucky. 18 U.S.C. section 2510(2) defines "oral communication" as speech uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that it is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying that expectation. carries no comparable qualifier: it defines a single term, "eavesdrop," and the Kentucky offense turns on consent rather than on where the conversation happened. Do not assume that a conversation in a public setting falls outside KRS 526.020 because no one could expect privacy there, because the Kentucky text does not draw that line.

What you cannot do is plant a recorder and walk away to capture a conversation between others who have not consented. That conduct is exactly what KRS 526.020 punishes as a Class D felony.

law library reading room with brass lamp and books in soft focus

Recording phone calls in Kentucky

The one-party rule applies equally to phone calls. If you are on the call, you can record it without disclosure, regardless of whether the other party knows. The rule covers landlines, mobile phones, and internet-based services such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Google Meet. The medium does not change the analysis.

Federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. section 2511(2)(d) mirrors Kentucky's floor: a person who is a party to the communication, or who has one party's prior consent, may record unless the interception is for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.

Interstate calls require extra attention. ECPA does not preempt stricter state law. When a Kentucky caller is on the line with someone in an all-party consent state, the stricter state's rule applies from its end. The all-party states for at least some recording contexts include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. The safe-harbor rule: when calling into any of those states, get every party's consent before recording.

See Kentucky Phone Call Recording Laws for the full call-recording analysis.

wireless earbuds in their open charging case on a white desk

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Kentucky has no general criminal prohibition on video recording in private spaces. The relevant statutes are sexual-purpose only.

KRS 531.090 (voyeurism, Class A misdemeanor) reaches intentional use of a camera or other imaging device to view, photograph, film, or videotape the sexual conduct, genitals, certain undergarments, or the nipple of the female breast of another person without consent, in a place where a reasonable person would not expect to be observed. The statute is limited to sexual content and sexual-gratification purpose; it does not reach nanny cams, doorbells, or general surveillance cameras capturing arrivals, departures, or package thefts.

KRS 531.100 (video voyeurism, Class D felony) upgrades the conduct where the actor records the sexual content for consideration or distributes it via any electronic or digital medium. Distribution upgrades what would be a misdemeanor to a felony carrying 1 to 5 years in prison.

An audio caveat applies to all camera systems: a Ring doorbell, nanny cam, or business IP camera that captures audio is also a recording device under KRS 526.020. Audio recorded while the homeowner or business owner is present and a party to the conversation is covered by one-party consent. Audio captured of conversations among others when no consenting party is present is potential eavesdropping exposure, even if the video is lawful.

The FTC's May 2023 settlement with Ring required $5.8 million in consumer redress and ongoing privacy-program injunctive relief, based on findings that Ring gave employees and contractors access to customer video without adequate consent. That federal consumer-protection overlay applies to Kentucky consumers using Ring or similar smart cameras.

See Kentucky Security Camera Laws and Kentucky Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws for deeper coverage.

Kentucky desk phone handset lifted slightly off its cradle on an office desk with a coiled cord

Penalties for illegal recording in Kentucky

The Chapter 526 penalty structure is short but was historically misreported (the eavesdropping install and possession statutes were inverted on the prior version of this page). The corrected mapping:

OffenseStatuteClassMaximum penalty
EavesdroppingKRS 526.020Class D felony1 to 5 years prison; $1,000 to $10,000 fine
Installing an eavesdropping deviceClass D felony1 to 5 years prison; $1,000 to $10,000 fine
Possession of an eavesdropping deviceClass A misdemeanorUp to 12 months jail; up to $500 fine
Tampering with private communicationsClass A misdemeanorUp to 12 months jail; up to $500 fine
Divulging illegally obtained informationClass A misdemeanorUp to 12 months jail; up to $500 fine

Sentencing anchors come from outside Chapter 526. Class D felony imprisonment of 1 to 5 years is set by KRS 532.060(2)(d); the $1,000 to $10,000 fine range is set by KRS 534.030(1). Class A misdemeanor exposure of up to 12 months and a fine up to $500 comes from KRS 532.090 and KRS 534.040.

KRS 526.080 provides for forfeiture only. Any device used in violation of Chapter 526 is forfeited to the state under KRS 500.090. creates no civil damages remedy.

makes it a Class A misdemeanor to use or divulge information obtained through illegal eavesdropping. That state prohibition has a federal constitutional ceiling. Under Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the First Amendment protects a person who did not participate in an unlawful interception, who lawfully obtained a recording that someone else intercepted illegally, and who discloses it publicly, provided the disclosure concerns a matter of public concern and the material is truthful. A journalist or other third party who receives an illegally recorded Kentucky conversation from someone else, without taking part in the original interception, is not automatically exposed to KRS 526.060 liability for publishing it if those conditions are met.

Kentucky has no state statutory civil cause of action for illegal recording. Civil plaintiffs must route through federal ECPA and Kentucky common law. 18 U.S.C. section 2520 authorizes actual damages, or statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or $10,000 (whichever is greater), plus punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees, and equitable relief. Kentucky common-law invasion of privacy under McCall v. Courier-Journal, 623 S.W.2d 882 (Ky. 1981) supplies the intrusion-upon-seclusion and public-disclosure-of-private-facts claims that fill the gap left by Chapter 526. The typical plaintiff files the federal section 2520 claim and pairs it with a McCall count.

glass-walled conference room with figures behind translucent doors

Recording the police in Kentucky

Kentucky sits in the Sixth Circuit, covering Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan, and Ohio. The Sixth Circuit has not issued a published, binding decision recognizing a First Amendment right of citizens to record on-duty police in public.

Crawford v. Geiger, 656 F. App'x 190 (6th Cir. 2016), is the closest in-circuit authority. The case involved plaintiffs who alleged, among other things, a First Amendment right to film police. The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on the First Amendment recording claim; the Sixth Circuit appeal focused on the Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims, not the recording right. The decision is unpublished (Federal Appendix) and is persuasive only. It did not recognize or announce a First Amendment right to record police.

Hils v. Davis, 52 F.4th 997 (6th Cir. 2022), is officer-context only. The court held that Cincinnati police officers have no First Amendment right to record their own internal misconduct interviews. The opinion does not address civilian recording of police in public and should not be read as limiting it.

Out-of-circuit consensus runs in favor of the right. Multiple circuits, including the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh, recognize a First Amendment interest in recording on-duty police in public, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner constraints.

In practice: a Kentucky civilian recording police in public from a reasonable distance, without interfering with officer duties, and complying with lawful orders to step back, has a strong merits position. Any resulting Section 1983 claim will face a qualified-immunity challenge because the right is not clearly established by published Sixth Circuit authority.

Body-worn cameras are governed by KRS 61.168 within the Open Records Act family. Agencies must disclose footage depicting use of force, detention or arrest, or the substance of a formal complaint against an officer (subsection (5)), but may withhold footage from private residences, medical facilities, involving minors, and other enumerated categories (subsection (4)). Public meetings may generally be recorded under the Kentucky Open Meetings Act at KRS 61.805 through 61.850.

See Kentucky Laws on Recording Police for the full analysis.

Special topics in Kentucky

Workplace recording

Kentucky's one-party consent rule applies at work: an employee who is part of a conversation may record it. This covers HR meetings, performance reviews, disciplinary interviews, and coworker exchanges. What the one-party rule does not do is immunize a no-recording policy from federal labor law. Under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), a blanket workplace no-recording policy is presumptively unlawful under Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA if a reasonable employee could interpret it as chilling Section 7 protected concerted activity. Narrowly drawn rules tied to confidentiality, safety, or HIPAA with Section 7 carve-outs are defensible. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) separately treats undisclosed recording of a collective-bargaining session as a per se Section 8(a)(5) or (b)(3) violation of the duty to bargain in good faith.

See Kentucky Workplace Recording Laws.

AI and deepfake law

Kentucky's first AI-governance enactment is SB 4 of 2025 (Acts Chapter 66, signed March 24, 2025, effective that day under an emergency declaration). It creates KRS 42.731, directing the Commonwealth Office of Technology to establish an AI Governance Committee, adopt ISO/IEC 42001 standards, maintain a registry of generative and high-risk AI systems, and require human validation of AI outputs and public disclaimers in citizen-facing AI decisions. It also creates a civil cause of action in a new section of KRS Chapter 117 for election officers and candidates whose appearance, action, or speech is altered through synthetic media in an electioneering communication. Clear-and-convincing proof required; clear-and-conspicuous disclosure is an affirmative defense.

Kentucky has no general civil or criminal deepfake or AI-NCII statute outside the election context. (the 2018 non-consensual intimate imagery statute) lacks express AI language; its application to AI-generated imagery is unsettled. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. No. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) fills the gap for AI-generated NCII: it criminalizes knowing publication of such content and requires covered platforms to remove flagged material within 48 hours, with platform compliance effective May 19, 2026.

Non-consensual intimate imagery

KRS 531.120 prohibits intentional distribution of private erotic matter to a third party without the depicted person's written consent where the actor intends to profit or harm. A first offense is a Class A misdemeanor; a subsequent offense or first offense for profit is a Class D felony; a subsequent offense for profit is a Class C felony. Subsection (3) requires platform operators to remove flagged images on request and bars any removal fee. The TAKE IT DOWN Act supplements KRS 531.120 for AI-generated content.

Federal overlay

18 U.S.C. section 2520 is the principal civil damages vehicle for Kentucky plaintiffs because Chapter 526 has no state equivalent. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) holds that AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial or prerecorded voice" under TCPA and require prior express written consent; this ruling is in force. FCC 24-24 (the one-to-one consent rule) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit on April 30, 2025, and is no longer effective. HIPAA governs recordings in healthcare settings: a covered entity recording a patient encounter requires HIPAA-compliant authorization under 45 C.F.R. sections 164.502 and 164.508 unless a treatment, payment, or operations exception applies. CALEA at 47 U.S.C. sections 1001 to 1010 requires carriers to support lawful interception under court order; it imposes engineering obligations and does not authorize warrantless interception.

  • March 24, 2025: Governor Beshear signed SB 4 of 2025 (Acts Chapter 66), Kentucky's first AI-governance law, effective immediately. Creates KRS 42.731 (state-agency AI governance) and a new KRS Chapter 117 civil cause of action for synthetic-media electioneering communications.
  • May 19, 2025: Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. No. 119-12) signed, criminalizing publication of non-consensual intimate imagery including AI-generated deepfakes. Platform compliance (48-hour notice-and-removal) effective May 19, 2026.
  • April 30, 2025: FCC 24-24 (one-to-one TCPA consent rule) vacated by the Eleventh Circuit; mandate issued. Pre-existing TCPA prior-express-written-consent rules govern.
  • February 14, 2025: NLRB GC 25-05 rescinded several Biden-era General Counsel memoranda and reinstated Boeing-era prosecutorial posture. Stericycle remains binding Board precedent.

Kentucky recording laws in depth

Want to know more? Each sub-page below covers a specific recording context for Kentucky in depth.

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Kentucky 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 Kentucky attorney.

More Kentucky Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Kentucky is a one-party consent state. Under KRS 526.010 and KRS 526.020, a participant in a wire or oral communication, or anyone with the prior consent of at least one party, may lawfully record. Kentucky does not require all-party or two-party consent for audio recordings.

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

Yes, if you are a party to the call. Kentucky's one-party consent rule under KRS 526.020 means you need only your own participation to record a call you are on. No beep tone, disclosure, or notice is required for calls entirely within Kentucky. For interstate calls to all-party states such as California, Florida, or Illinois, you should get consent from all parties before recording.

Is illegal recording a felony in Kentucky?

Yes. Eavesdropping under KRS 526.020 and installing an eavesdropping device under KRS 526.030 are each Class D felonies, carrying 1 to 5 years in prison and a fine of $1,000 to $10,000. Possessing an eavesdropping device (KRS 526.040), tampering with private communications (KRS 526.050), and divulging illegally obtained information (KRS 526.060) are Class A misdemeanors with up to 12 months in jail and a fine up to $500.

Can I sue for illegal recording in Kentucky?

Kentucky's Chapter 526 contains no state statutory civil cause of action; KRS 526.080 is forfeiture only. Plaintiffs typically sue under federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. section 2520, which provides actual damages or statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or $10,000 (whichever is greater), plus punitive damages, attorney fees, and equitable relief. A Kentucky common-law invasion-of-privacy claim under McCall v. Courier-Journal, 623 S.W.2d 882 (Ky. 1981) is typically added for intrusion upon seclusion.

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in Kentucky?

Video-only cameras recording exterior areas are generally lawful. Audio-capable cameras inside a home bring the device under KRS 526.020 when they record conversations among guests or workers. The homeowner's one-party consent covers audio when the owner is present and a party to the conversation; audio of conversations among others captured while the owner is absent can fall within the eavesdropping statute. Kentucky's voyeurism statutes (KRS 531.090 and KRS 531.100) only reach cameras used to record sexual content.

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

Yes, if you are part of the meeting. Kentucky's one-party rule applies in the workplace. Your employer may have an internal no-recording policy, and violating it can result in discipline or termination even though the recording is legal under state law. Under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), a blanket no-recording policy that chills Section 7 concerted activity is presumptively unlawful under federal labor law, giving some employees additional protection.

Can I record the police in Kentucky?

One-party consent permits the recording as a matter of state criminal law, since you are a party to any interaction with an officer. The First Amendment question is less settled: the Sixth Circuit has no published binding decision establishing a right to record on-duty police in public. Crawford v. Geiger, 656 F. App'x 190 (6th Cir. 2016), is unpublished and persuasive only. Out-of-circuit consensus supports the right. Civilians recording openly from a safe distance and without interfering with officer duties have a strong merits position, but face qualified-immunity risk in any Section 1983 case.

Does Kentucky have a deepfake or AI recording law?

Kentucky's first AI law is SB 4 of 2025 (Acts Chapter 66, signed March 24, 2025). It governs state-agency AI use under KRS 42.731 and creates a civil cause of action for synthetic-media electioneering communications targeting election officers and candidates. Kentucky has no general deepfake or AI-NCII criminal or civil statute outside that election context. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. No. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) provides a federal remedy for AI-generated non-consensual intimate imagery, with platform compliance effective May 19, 2026.

Updates

Corrected the in-person recording section: the requirement that a speaker hold a justified expectation against interception comes from federal law at 18 U.S.C. 2510(2), not from KRS 526.010, which defines only "eavesdrop" and turns on consent rather than on where the conversation took place.

Corrected four dead or misrouted statute-citation links in the penalties and AI-law sections (KRS 532.060, 532.090, 534.030, and 42.731) so each now points to its actual statute text; the penalty figures and AI-governance description were already accurate.

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

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Restructured Kentucky hub per recording-redo spec: condensed 8,000-word page to readable prose (2,700 words); organized into standard sections (AEO lede, at-a-glance table, in-person, phone, hidden cameras, penalties, police, special topics, in-depth index); retained all verified statutes and citations; refreshed FAQ; preserved all primary-source URLs. Audit-fix: corrected mischaracterization of Crawford v. Geiger, 656 F. App'x 190 (6th Cir. 2016): the First Amendment recording claim was dismissed at the district court level; the Sixth Circuit appeal addressed Fourth Amendment excessive-force claims only; rewritten to accurately reflect this; Crawford added to SourcesList with CourtListener URL. All other facts confirmed: SB 4 of 2025 signed March 24, 2025; ECPA 2520 civil remedy; Hils v. Davis (officer context); FCC 24-24 vacatur April 30, 2025; TAKE IT DOWN Act platform compliance May 19, 2026.

Refreshed Kentucky hub with verified KRS Chapter 526 mapping and the Kentucky-specific finding that the eavesdropping chapter contains no statutory civil cause of action. KRS 526.030 corrected to installing an eavesdropping device (Class D felony); KRS 526.040 corrected to possession (Class A misdemeanor); the prior page had these inverted. KRS 526.080 reframed as forfeiture only under KRS 500.090, with civil plaintiffs routed to federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. section 2520 and common-law invasion of privacy under McCall v. Courier-Journal, 623 S.W.2d 882 (Ky. 1981). Added SB 4 of 2025 (Acts Chapter 66, signed by Governor Beshear March 24, 2025) as Kentucky's first AI-governance enactment, creating KRS 42.731 plus a new section of KRS Chapter 117 for synthetic-media electioneering claims. Removed prior references to HB 91, HB 213, and SB 113 (none enacted as deepfake or AI recording law). Body-camera citation corrected from KRS 15A.300 to KRS 61.168 within the Open Records Act family. Sixth Circuit civilian record-the-police authority recast: Crawford v. Geiger, 656 F. App'x 190 (6th Cir. 2016), is unpublished and persuasive only, and Hils v. Davis, 52 F.4th 997 (6th Cir. 2022), is officer context only. FCC 24-24 marked vacated by the Eleventh Circuit (mandate April 30, 2025); the stale 47 C.F.R. section 64.501 reference removed. Added the NLRB Stericycle workplace overlay and General Counsel Memos 25-05 and 25-07. Added the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act platform-compliance regime effective May 19, 2026. Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with apps.legislature.ky.gov, lrc.ky.gov, courts.ky.gov, and uscode.house.gov.

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

Sources and References

  1. KRS 526.010 (Definition of eavesdrop)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  2. KRS 526.020 (Eavesdropping; Class D felony)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  3. KRS 526.030 (Installing eavesdropping device; Class D felony)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  4. KRS 526.040 (Possession of eavesdropping device; Class A misdemeanor)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  5. KRS 526.050 (Tampering with private communications)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  6. KRS 526.060 (Divulging illegally obtained information)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  7. KRS 526.070 (Exceptions)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  8. KRS 526.080 (Forfeiture of eavesdropping device)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  9. KRS 531.090 (Voyeurism; Class A misdemeanor)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  10. KRS 531.100 (Video voyeurism; Class D felony)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  11. KRS 531.120 (Distribution of sexually explicit images without consent)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  12. KRS 61.168 (Body-worn camera recordings and disclosure)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  13. Kentucky SB 4 of 2025 (Acts Chapter 66)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  14. Acts of 2025 Chapter 66 (signed bill PDF)(apps.legislature.ky.gov).gov
  15. McCall v. Courier-Journal, 623 S.W.2d 882 (Ky. 1981)(courts.ky.gov).gov
  16. Crawford v. Geiger, 656 F. App'x 190 (6th Cir. 2016) (unpublished)(courtlistener.com)
  17. Hils v. Davis, 52 F.4th 997 (6th Cir. 2022)(opn.ca6.uscourts.gov).gov
  18. Federal Wiretap Chapter (18 U.S.C. sections 2510 to 2522)(uscode.house.gov).gov
  19. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (AI voice in robocalls)(docs.fcc.gov).gov
  20. Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025)(media.ca11.uscourts.gov).gov
  21. FCC 2017 Biennial Review (47 C.F.R. section 64.501 removal)(federalregister.gov).gov
  22. Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023)(nlrb.gov).gov
  23. NLRB GC 25-07 (surreptitious recording of bargaining sessions)(nlrb.gov).gov
  24. TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. No. 119-12)(congress.gov).gov
  25. FTC v. Ring LLC settlement (2023)(ftc.gov).gov
  26. HIPAA Privacy Rule (45 C.F.R. Part 164)(ecfr.gov).gov
  27. Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. sections 1001 to 1010)(uscode.house.gov).gov
  28. Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001)(law.cornell.edu)
  29. 18 U.S.C. section 2510(2) (federal definition of "oral communication")(govinfo.gov)
Share: