Louisiana Recording Laws (2026): La. R.S. 15:1303

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

Louisiana is a one-party consent state under La. R.S. § 15:1303. A party to a wire, electronic, or oral communication, or any person who has the prior consent of at least one party, may lawfully intercept the communication. Louisiana is not a two-party or all-party consent state. That answer has held since the Louisiana Electronic Surveillance Act took effect on January 1, 1989.

The state-law one-party rule is layered on top of the federal one-party floor at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) and the Louisiana Supreme Court's constitutional anchor in State v. Reeves, 427 So.2d 403 (La. 1982). It is, however, harsher than most one-party states in two specific ways. First, La. R.S. § 15:1303(G) sets the criminal penalty at 2 to 10 years at hard labor and a fine up to $10,000, the steepest baseline wiretap penalty among the one-party group. Second, La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4) carves out a recording made for the purpose of committing a criminal, tortious, or any other injurious act, language broader than the federal ECPA standard.

Louisiana Recording Law Summary

Key Point	Answer
Audio consent	One-party (La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4))
Video consent (private place, lewd intent)	All-party rule via La. R.S. § 14:283 voyeurism
Criminal penalty (audio interception)	2 to 10 years at hard labor + up to $10,000
Civil floor (audio)	$100/day or $1,000 minimum (whichever is greater), plus actual, punitive, fees
Tortious-or-injurious-purpose carveout	Yes, broader than federal ECPA
Police buffer zone (La. R.S. § 14:108.4)	Preliminarily enjoined since January 31, 2025
Deepfake regime	La. R.S. § 14:73.13 (up to 30 years hard labor + $50K)
HB 410 (2026)	Pending only, not enacted
Federal floor	One-party under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)

For the canonical state-by-state list of strict jurisdictions, see two-party consent states. For the federal hub treatment, see United States recording laws.

Louisiana Electronic Surveillance Act (La. R.S. § 15:1303)

Louisiana's wiretap statute is part of the Louisiana Electronic Surveillance Act, codified at La. R.S. § 15:1301 through § 15:1316. The Act was enacted by 1988 La. Act 515 and took effect January 1, 1989. It tracks the federal Wiretap Act in structure but adds Louisiana-specific quirks at the carveout layer and at the penalty layer.

Statutory Definitions (La. R.S. § 15:1302)

La. R.S. § 15:1302 defines the operative terms. "Wire communication" reaches any aural transfer made through the use of communication facilities. "Oral communication" reaches any oral utterance by a person exhibiting a reasonable expectation of non-interception. "Electronic communication" reaches transfers of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence by wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photooptical system, including cellular and cordless telephone communications. "Intercept" reaches the aural or other acquisition of contents through any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

The One-Party Consent Rule and the Injurious-Act Carveout (La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4))

The text of the one-party consent exception is the analytical heart of Louisiana audio recording law. La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4) provides:

"It shall not be unlawful under this Chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or of the constitution or laws of this state, or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act."

Two pieces of that text deserve emphasis. First, the consent rule is one-party: a single party (which can be the recorder) is enough. Second, the carveout reaches three categories of bad purpose. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) excepts only a "criminal or tortious act." Louisiana's § 15:1303(C)(4) adds "or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act," a broader phrase that may sweep in conduct like blackmail, extortion, harassment, retaliation, or stalking even where the underlying conduct does not satisfy every element of an existing tort or crime.

Practically, this means a Louisiana recorder cannot rely on the one-party consent defense if the recording itself is part of an injurious scheme. A neighbor who records a conversation to leak the contents and damage the speaker's reputation, a co-parent who records to fabricate a custody narrative, or an ex-employee who records to retaliate against a former boss may all sit within the broader injurious-act zone even if the conduct does not fit cleanly into a named tort. The federal floor is narrower; Louisiana's rule is broader.

Constitutional Anchor: State v. Reeves, 427 So.2d 403 (La. 1982)

The Louisiana Supreme Court resolved the constitutional dimension of one-party consent recording in State v. Reeves, 427 So.2d 403 (La. 1982). The court held that warrantless consensual electronic surveillance, where a state agent intercepts a conversation with the consent of one party (typically an informant), does not invade the non-consenting party's reasonable expectation of privacy under La. Const. art. I, § 5. Combined with La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4)'s statutory exception, Reeves establishes that Louisiana's one-party consent rule is constitutionally and statutorily anchored.

Penalties: Felony at Hard Labor and Civil Damages

Louisiana stands out among one-party consent states for the severity of its baseline wiretap penalty. La. R.S. § 15:1303(G) imposes 2 to 10 years at hard labor and a fine up to $10,000. By comparison, Missouri classifies illegal interception as a Class E felony (up to 4 years); Arkansas classifies it as a Class A misdemeanor (up to 1 year and $2,500); Oklahoma reaches up to 5 years and $5,000 with no statutory civil cause; South Carolina reaches up to 5 years and $5,000 with a $25,000 minimum civil floor; Mississippi reaches up to 5 years and $10,000. Louisiana's "at hard labor" designation places its felony at the highest grade in the chapter and is unusual among one-party consent states.

Criminal Penalty (La. R.S. § 15:1303(G))

La. R.S. § 15:1303(G) provides: "Any person who violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars and imprisoned for not less than two years nor more than ten years at hard labor." That sentence reaches anyone who willfully intercepts a communication in violation of (A), willfully discloses contents in violation of (B), or willfully uses contents in violation of (C). The penalty applies on a per-violation basis.

The "at hard labor" designation matters. Louisiana criminal law distinguishes felonies imposable with hard labor, without hard labor, and either way. La. R.S. § 15:1303(G) sits in the most serious category: hard labor is mandatory upon conviction. Combined with the broader (C)(4) carveout, Louisiana practitioners face one of the steepest one-party-state criminal exposures in the country.

Civil Liability (La. R.S. § 15:1312)

La. R.S. § 15:1312 creates a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses a wire, electronic, or oral communication in violation of La. R.S. § 15:1303. The statute lays out four recovery layers, plus a defense:

• Actual damages. A successful plaintiff first recovers actual damages flowing from the violation. There is no cap on actual damages.
• Liquidated damages floor. The statute provides 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." This is a two-tier floor, not a choice between two alternatives. A single-day violation has a $1,000 floor. A long-running violation accrues at $100 per day if that figure exceeds $1,000 (it does once the violation passes 10 days).
• Punitive damages. The statute authorizes punitive damages in appropriate cases.
• Attorney fees and litigation costs. A prevailing plaintiff recovers reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. Fees are a separate category from costs.
• Good-faith defense. Reliance on a court order is a complete defense to civil or criminal action under the chapter.

The civil floor is lower than South Carolina's $25,000 minimum but higher than Oklahoma's wiretap regime, which lacks a statutory civil cause altogether. The two-year statute of limitations for civil claims under La. R.S. § 15:1312(C) runs from the date the claimant first discovered or had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.

Comparative Severity Among One-Party Consent States

The chart below sets Louisiana's penalty against the other one-party consent states with felony exposure at the top of their wiretap statute.

State	Criminal Penalty	Civil Floor
Louisiana (La. R.S. § 15:1303(G))	2 to 10 years at hard labor + up to $10,000	$100/day or $1,000 minimum + actual, punitive, fees
Missouri (§ 542.402)	Class E felony, up to 4 years	$100/day or $10,000 minimum + actual, punitive, fees
Arkansas (§ 5-60-120)	Class A misdemeanor, up to 1 year + $2,500	Common-law remedies
Oklahoma (13 O.S. § 176.3)	Up to 5 years + $5,000	None (no statutory civil cause)
South Carolina (§ 17-30-50)	Up to 5 years + $5,000	$25,000 minimum + actual, punitive, fees
Mississippi (§ 41-29-501 et seq.)	Up to 5 years + $10,000	Actual + punitive

Louisiana's combined exposure (hard labor at the floor plus the broader (C)(4) carveout plus the statutory civil floor with punitive and fee shifting) is a real differentiator. A Louisiana plaintiff with a clean recording of a violation has tools that a plaintiff in Oklahoma, Arkansas, or Mississippi simply does not have.

Louisiana's 2024 Police Buffer Zone (La. R.S. § 14:108.4) Was Blocked in Federal Court

In 2024, Louisiana enacted a 25-foot buffer zone around peace officers performing official duties. The statute is on the books but is not enforceable anywhere in the state.

The Statute on Paper: La. R.S. § 14:108.4

La. R.S. § 14:108.4 was created by 2024 La. Act 259 (HB 173 of the 2024 Regular Session), signed by Governor Jeff Landry on May 24, 2024, with an originally scheduled effective date of August 1, 2024. The statute makes it a criminal offense to knowingly or intentionally approach within 25 feet of a peace officer who is engaged in the lawful execution of an official duty, after the officer has ordered the person to stop approaching or to retreat. First-offense penalty is a misdemeanor: a fine up to $500, imprisonment up to 60 days, or both.

Deep South Today, d/b/a Verite News v. Murrill (M.D. La. Jan. 31, 2025)

Six news organizations filed suit in the Middle District of Louisiana on July 31, 2024, one day before La. R.S. § 14:108.4 was scheduled to take effect. The case is Deep South Today, d/b/a Verite News, et al. v. Murrill, No. 3:24-cv-00591 (M.D. La.). The plaintiffs are Deep South Today (publisher of Verite News), TEGNA Inc., Scripps Media Inc., Nexstar Media Inc., Gray Local Media, Inc., and Gannett Co. The defendants are Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, Louisiana State Police Superintendent Robert Hodges, and East Baton Rouge Parish District Attorney Hillar C. Moore III.

After oral argument on December 11, 2024, U.S. District Judge John W. deGravelles ruled on January 31, 2025, granting a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the statute. The court held that La. R.S. § 14:108.4 is unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment because it provides no standard governing when an officer may order a person to retreat, allowing arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The court further found that plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm to their First Amendment newsgathering rights at the scene of police activity, supporting the equitable injunction.

The framing of the holding matters. The preliminary injunction rests on Fourteenth Amendment vagueness as the substantive ground. The First Amendment newsgathering harm appears in the irreparable-harm analysis, not as the substantive ruling. Press coverage that describes the law as "struck down on First Amendment grounds" or "held unconstitutionally vague under the First Amendment" misstates the case. Coverage from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has tracked the litigation accurately.

Fifth Circuit Appeal: Pending as of May 2026

The State of Louisiana filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in early March 2025. As of May 10, 2026, the Louisiana Attorney General's appeal remains pending; the Fifth Circuit has not issued a published merits ruling, and the preliminary injunction remains in force. La. R.S. § 14:108.4 is unenforceable statewide. Anyone tracking the appeal should watch ca5.uscourts.gov and the RCFP litigation tracker for any merits disposition.

This is the only remaining 25-foot police buffer-zone law in the country to have been blocked by a federal court on Fourteenth Amendment vagueness grounds with a pending federal appeal. Louisiana's statute is the live test case.

Recording Police and Public Officials in Louisiana

Even with the buffer-zone law on hold, the right to record police officers in Louisiana flows through two layers: the First Amendment as applied by the Fifth Circuit, and Louisiana's voluntary body-camera framework.

Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017)

The Fifth Circuit held in Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017), that the First Amendment protects the right to film police officers performing their duties in public, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Officers received qualified immunity in Turner itself because the right was not clearly established at the time, but the court announced the right is clearly established going forward. The Fifth Circuit covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Combined with the Verite News v. Murrill preliminary injunction, journalists, bystanders, and citizens in Louisiana currently enjoy strong First Amendment protection for filming officers in public.

Practical Limits on the Right to Record Police

Filmers in Louisiana should still avoid physically interfering with police operations, avoid trespassing onto closed scenes, and comply with lawful orders to step back where compliance does not require giving up the right to film. These limits are time, place, and manner restrictions consistent with Turner. They are not a license to retreat 25 feet on demand: that command, made under the buffer-zone statute, is currently unenforceable.

Body-Worn Cameras and Open Meetings

La. R.S. § 40:2551 authorizes Louisiana law enforcement agencies to equip officers with body-worn cameras and requires every agency that uses them to adopt a written policy addressing activation, retention, and disclosure. Body-worn camera recordings are governed by the Louisiana Public Records Act, La. R.S. § 44:1 et seq., subject to the law-enforcement-investigative carve-outs at La. R.S. § 44:3. Louisiana does not mandate body-worn camera use; coverage is agency-by-agency under voluntary policy.

Louisiana's Open Meetings Law at La. R.S. § 42:11 et seq. explicitly provides that all proceedings in a public meeting may be video or tape recorded, filmed, or broadcast live. You can record city council, parish council, school board, state legislative, and public hearing proceedings without seeking permission.

Pending: HB 410 (2026) Would Add a Notice Requirement, but It Has Not Been Enacted

Louisiana HB 410 of the 2026 Regular Session, by Representative Schlegel, is a pending bill. It is not law. Anyone reading press coverage that suggests Louisiana has "moved to two-party consent" or "added a notice requirement" should treat the bill as pending only.

As originally introduced, HB 410 required two-party consent before recording in-person conversations. The bill was subsequently amended to a notice-only rule with carveouts for police recording, public meetings, the recorder's home, and recordings made as evidence of civil or criminal offenses. Phone-call recording would continue to be governed by La. R.S. § 15:1303 unchanged.

HB 410 advanced from the House Civil Law Committee in late March 2026 and was thereafter voluntarily deferred. It has not received a House floor vote, has not gone to the Senate, and has not been signed by the Governor. HB 410 is not law. Do not rely on this section as a statement of current Louisiana recording law. Louisiana remains a one-party consent state under La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4) as of May 10, 2026. If HB 410's status changes after this verification date, this article will be updated; see the legis.la.gov bill page for HB 410 for the live tracker.

Louisiana Video Voyeurism (La. R.S. § 14:283)

Louisiana's video voyeurism statute is structurally separate from the wiretap statute. La. R.S. § 14:283 prohibits the use of any camera, videotape, photo-optical, photo-electric, or any other image recording device, or an unmanned aircraft system equipped with such devices, to observe, view, photograph, film, or videotape a person without consent for a lewd or lascivious purpose, where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Drone-mounted cameras are explicitly within scope.

The penalty schedule has four tiers, keyed to the content of the recording and the age of the victim. Practitioners need to read all four tiers; collapsing them into a single "2 to 5 years and $10,000" headline misstates the statute.

Four-Tier Penalty Schedule (La. R.S. § 14:283(B))

Subsection	Trigger	Penalty
(B)(1) First conviction	No enhancing element	Up to $2,000 fine + up to 2 years imprisonment, with or without hard labor
(B)(2) Second or subsequent conviction	Prior conviction under (B)(1)	Up to $2,000 fine + 6 months to 3 years at hard labor, without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence
(B)(3) Sexual content depicted	Sexual intercourse, masturbation, breast exposure, or genital exposure	Up to $10,000 fine + 1 to 5 years at hard labor, without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence
(B)(4) Victim under 17 with sexual intent	Victim is under 17 + sexual intent	Up to $10,000 fine + 2 to 10 years at hard labor, without parole, probation, or suspension of sentence

Sex offender registration is required upon conviction at any tier. The (B)(1) baseline is up to 2 years (without mandatory hard labor); the (B)(2) through (B)(4) tiers all require hard labor. A first-time conviction without sexual content or a child victim is therefore meaningfully less severe than press summaries that quote the (B)(3) tier as "the" video voyeurism penalty.

Voyeurism by Physical Observation: La. R.S. § 14:283.1

La. R.S. § 14:283.1 is a separate offense for voyeurism by physical observation. It criminalizes viewing, observing, spying upon, or invading the privacy of a person by looking through the doors, windows, or other openings of a private residence, without consent, where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. First conviction is a misdemeanor with a fine up to $500 and imprisonment up to 6 months. A second or subsequent conviction reaches up to $2,000 and 6 months to 2 years (with or without hard labor).

The key distinction is the device. La. R.S. § 14:283 covers recording or transmitting an image with a device. La. R.S. § 14:283.1 covers physical viewing without an image-recording device. A peeping-Tom case without a phone or camera is § 14:283.1; the same conduct with a phone camera is § 14:283.

Intimate Images and Deepfakes: La. R.S. § 14:283.2 NCII Plus the 2023 Deepfake Regime

Louisiana operates three offense families for intimate-image and AI-generated content. They are statutorily separate and prosecutors can charge them concurrently. Writers and reporters should not lump them together.

Traditional NCII: La. R.S. § 14:283.2

La. R.S. § 14:283.2 is Louisiana's nonconsensual disclosure of a private image (NCII) statute. It prohibits the intentional posting, sharing, distribution, or disclosure of an image of a person 17 or older who is identifiable from the image or accompanying information and whose intimate parts are exposed in whole or in part. The statute requires three elements:

• The image was obtained under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know it was to remain private.
• The actor knew or should have known the depicted person did not consent to disclosure.
• The actor had the intent to harass or cause emotional distress, knowing or having reason to know that disclosure could harass or cause emotional distress.

Penalty: a fine up to $10,000, imprisonment with or without hard labor up to 2 years, or both. Statutory exclusions cover lawful, common, or accepted practices of law enforcement, criminal reporting, legal proceedings, medical treatment, or commercial settings; voluntary public exposure; and disclosures made in the public interest. La. R.S. § 14:283.2 is the traditional NCII statute and is separate from Louisiana's deepfake regime at La. R.S. § 14:73.13 and the AI-generated-image regime at La. R.S. § 14:73.14.

Deepfake Sexual Material: La. R.S. § 14:73.13 (2023 La. Act 457)

Louisiana's deepfake statute is one of the harshest in the country. La. R.S. § 14:73.13 (Unlawful Deepfakes) was created by 2023 La. Act 457 (SB 175 of 2023 Regular Session), signed by Governor John Bel Edwards on June 28, 2023, and effective August 1, 2023. The statute is not a 2024 or 2026 act; the correct vintage is 2023.

Subsection (A) defines "deepfake" as any audio or visual media in an electronic format, including any motion picture film or video recording, that is created, altered, or digitally manipulated in a manner that would falsely appear to a reasonable observer to be an authentic record of the actual speech or conduct of the individual, or that replaces an individual's likeness with another individual depicted in the recording. The definition excludes work of political, public-interest, or newsworthy value (commentary, criticism, satire, parody) and content carrying a clear, visible disclosure throughout.

Subsection (B) creates three offenses with three penalty tiers:

Offense	Penalty
Creating or possessing deepfake material depicting a minor in sexual conduct	5 to 20 years at hard labor + up to $10,000, with a minimum 5 years without parole, probation, or suspension
Advertising, distributing, exhibiting, exchanging, promoting, or selling deepfake sexual material depicting an adult without consent	10 to 30 years at hard labor + up to $50,000
Advertising, distributing, exhibiting, exchanging, promoting, or selling deepfake sexual material depicting a minor	10 to 30 years at hard labor + up to $50,000, with a minimum 10 years without parole, probation, or suspension

The 30-year-at-hard-labor ceiling and $50,000 fine ceiling are among the harshest sexual-deepfake penalties in the country. La. R.S. § 14:73.13 covers deepfake sexual material specifically, not all AI-generated content.

AI-Generated Images of Identifiable Adults: La. R.S. § 14:73.14

La. R.S. § 14:73.14 is the AI-specific companion to La. R.S. § 14:73.13. It prohibits the intentional dissemination or sale of an AI-generated image depicting an identifiable adult engaged in sexually explicit conduct, where the depicted person did not consent to creation or dissemination. The statute defines "artificial intelligence" for criminal-law purposes as machine-based systems that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from inputs how to generate outputs such as predictions, content, recommendations, or decisions. La. R.S. § 14:73.14 supplements La. R.S. § 14:283.2 NCII by giving prosecutors an AI-specific charging option separate from traditional NCII. The penalty range tracks La. R.S. § 14:73.13 distribution offenses; consult the statute for the exact range as amended.

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

The federal layer is the TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. No. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025. It amends Section 223 of the Communications Act to criminalize knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate imagery, including AI-generated digital forgeries (deepfakes), of identifiable adults and minors. Covered platforms must implement a notice-and-removal procedure that removes flagged content within 48 hours of valid notice. The criminal prohibition took effect on enactment; the platform compliance deadline is May 19, 2026 (9 days from this article's verification date).

The TAKE IT DOWN Act creates a parallel federal regime that does not preempt Louisiana criminal law. La. R.S. § 14:283.2 NCII, La. R.S. § 14:73.13 deepfake, and La. R.S. § 14:73.14 AI-generated images continue to apply. Louisiana victims gain a federal takedown remedy effective May 19, 2026. For drafting a takedown notice, see our DMCA Takedown Notice Generator.

Recording Phone Calls in Louisiana (Including Interstate Calls)

Phone call recording follows the same one-party consent rule as in-person recording. Under La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4), a Louisianan who is a party to a phone call may record without informing the other party. The rule covers landline calls, cell phone calls, VoIP calls (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet, FaceTime), and video calls. The statute reaches "wire, electronic, or oral communication," which captures all of these formats.

Interstate Calls: The Stricter State Wins

Interstate calls require a stricter analysis. Federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) sets a one-party floor and does not preempt stricter state law. When a Louisiana caller is on the phone with someone in a state that requires all-party consent, the safest course is to obtain consent from every party on the line.

The states that follow an all-party consent rule for at least some recording contexts are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. A Louisiana resident calling someone in any of these jurisdictions is generally bound by the stricter rule. Concrete Louisiana examples include:

• New Orleans tourism and hospitality calls into Florida or California
• Shreveport-Texas casino business calls into stricter states
• Baton Rouge oil-and-gas calls into Texas, Mississippi, or California

For the canonical state-by-state list of strict jurisdictions and bifurcated consent rules (e.g., Connecticut criminal one-party but civil two-party at Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-570d), see two-party consent states.

Business Call Recording

Louisiana businesses can record calls for quality assurance, training, or compliance purposes under La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4). Consent can be obtained through a verbal consent before the call begins, a recorded announcement ("This call may be recorded for quality assurance"), or a periodic beep tone during the call. None of these are statutorily required by Louisiana law, but they help establish the one-party basis on the record. A business that records an interstate call should default to disclosure for compliance with the stricter state's rule.

Call Recording for FDCPA / Reg F Compliance

Federal Reg F at 12 C.F.R. Part 1006 implements the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Reg F does not impose an affirmative two-party consent requirement, but consumer call recordings used as FDCPA evidence must satisfy the underlying state's consent rule. Louisiana debt collectors operating entirely within Louisiana need only one party's consent. Out-of-state collectors calling Louisiana consumers from a two-party state must comply with the more protective state's rule.

Recording at Work: Employee and Employer Rules in Louisiana

Workplace recording in Louisiana sits at the intersection of state criminal law (one-party under La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4)), federal labor doctrine (Stericycle), and any internal employer policy. The three layers are independent.

Stericycle Remains Binding NLRB Precedent

Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) sets the NLRB standard for evaluating workplace rules including no-recording policies under Section 8(a)(1). A rule is presumptively unlawful if a reasonable economically dependent employee, contemplating Section 7 protected concerted activity, could interpret it as chilling those rights. The employer rebuts by proving a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be achieved with a more narrowly tailored rule.

Blanket no-recording handbook clauses are vulnerable. Louisiana private-sector employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act must evaluate no-recording policies under Stericycle even though Louisiana is a one-party consent state for general criminal-law purposes. Louisiana's right-to-work status under Article I, Section 7 of the Louisiana Constitution does not exempt private-sector employers from NLRA Section 7. State one-party consent does not insulate an employer from a Section 8(a)(1) charge.

NLRB GC 25-05: Housekeeping Rescission, Not a Boeing-Era Reinstatement

NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-05 was issued February 14, 2025, by Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen. It rescinded several Biden-era General Counsel memoranda and signaled a return to a different prosecutorial posture at the General Counsel level. Critically, GC 25-05 did not overturn the Stericycle Board decision. The NLRB itself has explicitly noted GC 25-05 "did NOT and could not overturn the Stericycle Board decision." The rescission narrows the reach of Stericycle in practice without overruling it at the Board level. Stericycle remains binding Board precedent.

Louisiana employers should still draft no-recording policies narrowly tailored to legitimate confidentiality, safety, or HIPAA interests, with carve-outs for Section 7 activity. GC 25-05 is a housekeeping rescission of prior General Counsel memoranda; it is not a substantive Board-level reinstatement of pre-Stericycle work-rule doctrine.

NLRB GC 25-07: Narrow Per Se Rule for Bargaining-Session Recording

NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-07, issued in June 2025, treats surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith under Section 8(a)(5) or Section 8(b)(3). Where a party records a bargaining session without disclosure, the conduct supports an unfair labor practice complaint. The memo is narrowly scoped to bargaining-table conduct and does not govern ordinary workplace handbook rules or employee one-on-one recording. Louisiana private-sector employers and unions engaged in NLRA-covered bargaining should disclose any recording of bargaining sessions to avoid bad-faith bargaining exposure, even though Louisiana's one-party consent rule would permit the recording for criminal-law purposes.

Can Employees Record Their Employer in Louisiana?

Yes, in conversations they participate in. As a one-party consent state, Louisiana authorizes recording by any participant in the conversation under La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4). Common scenarios include documenting harassment or discrimination, preserving important verbal instructions, recording performance reviews, and protecting the employee in employment disputes.

The catch is the employer's internal policy. While recording is legal under Louisiana state law, violating a company policy could result in termination or other discipline, unless the recording was protected concerted activity under Section 7 (in which case Stericycle and the (a)(1) analysis kick in). Louisiana's at-will employment doctrine means private-sector terminations that do not violate a discrimination statute or a Section 7 right are generally lawful, even if the underlying recording was lawful under state criminal law. For deeper coverage of the federal layer, see Can an employer record conversations without consent.

Can Louisiana Employers Record Employees?

Louisiana employers can generally record in common work areas where employees do not have a privacy expectation. They cannot record in restrooms, locker rooms, or changing areas: those locations are paradigmatic privacy zones and run the employer into La. R.S. § 14:283 video voyeurism territory if the recording carries lewd or lascivious purpose, and into Section 7 chilling-effect territory regardless. Audio recording in common areas is one-party consent; the employer is typically a party.

Hidden Cameras, Doorbells, Nanny Cams, and Dashcams in Louisiana

Hidden-camera and home-surveillance scenarios run through the same combination of La. R.S. § 14:283 (video voyeurism, lewd intent in private places) and La. R.S. § 15:1303 (audio interception). The two statutes apply concurrently.

A Ring or similar doorbell camera pointed at a public-facing porch, sidewalk, or driveway is typically outside La. R.S. § 14:283 because those locations do not satisfy the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy element. The audio side runs through La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4): the homeowner is typically a party to conversations on their own porch. Audio capture of a passing pedestrian's private conversation is more contestable; the safest default is to disable audio for angles that reach the public sidewalk. For deeper Ring-doorbell treatment, see our Ring doorbell laws coverage.

A nanny cam in a common area (kitchen, living room, hallway) of a Louisiana home is generally lawful. Indoor cameras placed in private spaces of guests, tenants, or domestic workers (bathrooms, guest bedrooms, dressing areas) without consent can violate La. R.S. § 14:283 if a lewd or lascivious purpose is shown, and they expose the homeowner to invasion-of-privacy tort liability regardless. On audio, where the homeowner is a party to the captured conversation, one-party consent applies; where the homeowner steps out and the camera continues to record a nanny's private conversation with another adult, one-party consent does not cover that capture.

Dashcams are legal in Louisiana. Drivers should mount the camera so it does not obstruct the driver's view and remember that audio recording follows La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4) (the driver is typically a party to in-cabin conversations). Drone-mounted cameras are explicitly within La. R.S. § 14:283's scope under subsection (A)(1); a drone hovering near private windows, swimming pools, hotel balconies, or beach areas can convert into a felony at hard labor when the lewd-or-lascivious purpose, reasonable-expectation-of-privacy, and absence-of-consent elements are met.

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

Louisiana recording law sits inside a federal regulatory frame. Currency matters: two of the most-cited federal items in pre-2025 commentary are no longer live regulation.

ECPA, CALEA, and DOJ

The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 to 2522 sets a one-party consent floor at § 2511(2)(d) and does not preempt stricter state law. Section 2520 provides a federal civil cause of action ($100 per day or $10,000 minimum, plus punitive, fees, equitable relief). Louisiana's La. R.S. § 15:1312 layers on top. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), 47 U.S.C. §§ 1001 to 1010, imposes engineering obligations on carriers to enable lawful interception under court order; it does not authorize warrantless interception. Louisiana law enforcement obtaining a state-court order under La. R.S. § 15:1308 relies on CALEA-mandated carrier capabilities. DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302 sets internal procedures for federal warrantless consensual monitoring under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c).

FCC 24-17 In Force; FCC 24-24 Vacated; 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 Removed

FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) holds that AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227. Calling parties must obtain prior express written consent before placing AI-voice calls to wireless numbers or to residential lines for marketing. The TCPA private right of action is $500 per violation, treble for willful violations. As of May 10, 2026, FCC 24-17 remains in force.

The FCC's 2023 one-to-one consent rule (FCC 23-107 / FCC 24-24, codified at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(10)) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025), mandate issued April 30, 2025. The rule is no longer in force. The pre-existing TCPA prior-express-written-consent regime under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2)-(3) and (f)(9) governs marketing robocalls and texts to Louisiana numbers.

47 C.F.R. § 64.501 (the historic carrier monitoring-and-recording disclosure rule that formerly contained the beep-tone obligation) was removed effective November 20, 2017, by the FCC's Modernizing Common Carrier Rules order. Pre-2018 commentary citing § 64.501 as a live carrier disclosure obligation is stale.

TAKE IT DOWN Act and HIPAA

The TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. No. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025, criminalizes knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate imagery, including AI-generated digital forgeries, of identifiable adults and minors. Covered platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of valid notice; the platform compliance deadline is May 19, 2026 (9 days from this article's verification date). The federal Act runs in parallel with La. R.S. § 14:283.2 NCII, La. R.S. § 14:73.13 deepfake, and La. R.S. § 14:73.14 AI-generated images.

The HIPAA Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. Part 164, governs covered entities' use and disclosure of protected health information, including recordings of patient encounters. HIPAA does not prohibit a patient from audio-recording their own provider visit; the patient is not a covered entity. La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4) governs the patient's recording legality. Providers may adopt facility policies restricting recording on private property as a condition of treatment.

Using Recordings as Evidence in Louisiana

Recordings made legally under La. R.S. § 15:1303(C)(4) are generally admissible in Louisiana courts, subject to authentication, relevance, and Rule 403 prejudice analysis under the Louisiana Code of Evidence. Hearsay rules can exclude statements offered for their truth, though party admissions, present-sense impressions, and excited utterances are common exceptions. In criminal cases, illegally obtained recordings are typically inadmissible, and the act of making the recording may itself trigger La. R.S. § 15:1303 charges. In civil cases, courts may exclude illegally obtained evidence and the maker still faces civil liability under La. R.S. § 15:1312, with the two-year limitations period under § 15:1312(C) running from discovery.

Louisiana Recording Laws by Topic

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

• Louisiana Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
• Louisiana Dashcam Laws: Mounting, Recording, and Evidence Rules
• Louisiana Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Rights and Restrictions
• Louisiana Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and HIPAA Rules
• Louisiana Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know
• Louisiana Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and the Buffer Zone Law
• Louisiana Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Exceptions
• Louisiana School Recording Laws: Student and Parent Rights
• Louisiana Security Camera Laws: Residential and Business Rules
• Louisiana Video Recording Laws: Surveillance Rules and Privacy Limits
• Louisiana Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections
• Louisiana Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights

Frequently Asked Questions About Louisiana Recording Laws

Related Articles

• United States recording laws
• One-party consent states
• Two-party consent states
• Can an employer record conversations without consent
• Can you legally film the police
• Is it illegal to video record someone without their consent
• Louisiana surveillance camera laws
• DMCA Takedown Notice Generator

Legal Information Disclaimer: This page is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Louisiana recording law, including La. R.S. §§ 15:1303, 15:1312, 14:283, 14:283.1, 14:283.2, 14:73.13, 14:73.14, 14:108.4, 40:2551, 42:11 et seq., 44:1 et seq., and 44:3, is fact-specific. Federal developments (TAKE IT DOWN Act, FCC actions, NLRB guidance) and any post-publication Louisiana legislation (including HB 410 of the 2026 Regular Session) may change the framework. The Verite News v. Murrill Fifth Circuit appeal remains pending. If you face a specific legal situation involving recording in Louisiana, consult a licensed Louisiana attorney.

Last updated: 2026-05-10. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of 2026-05-10.