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

Minnesota is a one-party consent state under Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 subd. 2(d). Any participant in a phone call or in-person conversation may record it without telling the other parties. The exception: the consent cover disappears if the recording is made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Illegal interception is a felony (up to 5 years, $20,000 fine) and triggers one of the most plaintiff-friendly civil-damages regimes in any one-party consent state.

Minnesota recording law at a glance

For in-depth coverage of each scenario, jump to the Minnesota recording laws in depth section below.

Recording in-person conversations in Minnesota

Under Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 subd. 2(d), any person who is a party to an oral communication may record it without telling the other participants. The "oral communication" definition in § 626A.01 applies only when the speaker has a reasonable expectation that the communication is not being intercepted, so a loud conversation in a crowded restaurant or a speech at a public rally may not qualify as a protected oral communication at all.

The carve-out that matters in practice: the consent exception disappears when the recording is made "for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or of any state." This language, taken verbatim from the federal floor in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), is not boilerplate. Minnesota courts apply it to reject consent defenses where the recorder had an independent unlawful objective such as extortion, blackmail, or harassment.

Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 526 N.W.2d 402 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995) is the Minnesota appellate decision most often cited on this exception, and its procedural posture matters. A KSTP employee posing as a veterinary student videotaped inside the Copelands' home. The Copelands sued for trespass and later moved to amend their complaint to add state and federal wiretap claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of leave to amend, reviewing only for abuse of discretion, because the Copelands produced no evidence that the interception was made for the purpose of committing a tort: "The evidence is undisputed that KSTP intercepted the communication for commercial purposes and not for the purpose of committing trespass." That is a failure-of-proof ruling on a motion to amend, not a holding that hidden-camera news-gathering complies with § 626A.02.

On the trespass claim the court reversed summary judgment, holding that whether the Copelands' consent extended to a broadcaster's employee filming inside their home is a question for a factfinder: "Whether a possessor of land has given consent for entry is, when disputed, a factual issue," and on this record "there is sufficient evidence to withstand summary judgment." The court did not decide that consent was vitiated. What the reader should take from Copeland: the subd. 2(d) exemption is defeated only by proof of the recorder's purpose, the burden of that proof is on the party attacking the exemption, and other torts such as trespass can attach to the same conduct independent of the wiretap statute.

Concrete examples in range: a Minnesota employee recording an HR meeting they attend; a tenant recording a call with their landlord; a parent recording their own conversation with a school principal. All of those are participant recordings with no unlawful purpose. The hard cases involve an independent illegal objective, which is the purpose element Copeland turned on.

Recording phone calls in Minnesota

The same one-party rule applies to every voice medium: landline calls, cellular calls, VoIP calls (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet, FaceTime, WhatsApp, Signal), and voicemail. Cellular and VoIP calls are "electronic communications" under § 626A.01, and they fall under the same subd. 2(d) participant exception as wire-line calls.

The cross-state issue is the main risk. Minnesota borders Wisconsin and Iowa (both one-party), North Dakota, and South Dakota, but is also in the same call-region as Illinois. Illinois's Eavesdropping Act, 720 ILCS 5/14-2, is functionally an all-party rule for private conversations. A Minneapolis caller recording a Chicago recipient is compliant with Minnesota law but in violation of Illinois law if the Chicago recipient had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Illinois courts have asserted jurisdiction over out-of-state recorders in past prosecutions.

The conservative compliance rule for any call where the other party may be in a stricter state: deliver a "this call may be recorded" notice at the start. That notice supplies implied consent under most all-party-consent rules and removes the choice-of-law problem entirely. For multi-party calls with participants in California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, or other all-party states, explicit notice is the only safe approach.

Note: The legacy federal "beep tone" rule at 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 was removed effective November 20, 2017, and is no longer a live regulation. Do not rely on it as authority.

For detailed interstate treatment, see Minnesota Phone Call Recording Laws.

For a quick comparison of Minnesota's rule with the other party's state, try our recording consent checker.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Minnesota draws a sharp line between audio recording (chapter 626A) and visual surreptitious recording in private places (Minn. Stat. § 609.746). A hidden camera capturing both audio and video can trigger both statutes independently, and the analysis must be done for each prong.

Under § 609.746 subd. 1(e), it is a gross misdemeanor (up to 364 days jail and $3,000 fine) to use a device to photograph, record, or broadcast an image of a person in a house or place of dwelling, a hotel sleeping room, a tanning booth, a bathroom, a locker room, a changing room, an indoor shower facility, or any other place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy, where the device is used with the intent to capture an image of that individual's intimate parts without their consent. The intent element is doing real work: a camera in one of those rooms with no such intent is not a subd. 1(e) offense. Subd. 1(f) is the upskirt provision: photographing or recording under or around a person's clothing to view intimate parts or undergarments without consent is a misdemeanor (lower tier than subd. 1(e)).

Section 609.746 also reaches conduct that never touches intimate parts. Subd. 1(a) and (b) separately make it a gross misdemeanor to trespass onto another person's property and surreptitiously peep, or install or use a device to observe, photograph, or record, through the window or another aperture of a house or dwelling, with intent to intrude on the occupant's privacy. No nudity or intimate-parts exposure is required for this trespass-based offense, the one most likely to apply to a neighbor, ex-partner, or investigator surveilling a home from outside.

The felony tiers: subd. 1(g) raises the offense to a felony (up to 2 years prison and $5,000 fine) for a repeat offense or when the victim is a minor. Subd. 1(h) raises it further (up to 4 years prison and $5,000 fine) when the victim is a minor, the offender is at least 36 months older, and the recording was made with sexual intent.

Where the line falls for home cameras: a homeowner who installs an audio-and-video camera in the family room and is a party to the conversations it captures has § 626A.02 cover for the audio, and § 609.746 does not apply because the family room is not a place where a reasonable person expects intimate-parts privacy. The same camera installed in a guest bedroom or bathroom violates § 609.746 subd. 1(e) regardless of who installed it, provided it is used with the intent to capture the occupant's intimate parts without consent. Subd. 1(k) sets out express exceptions: paragraph (e) does not reach law enforcement officers or corrections investigators (or those acting at their direction) engaged in lawful duties, conduct in a medical facility, or conduct in a commercial establishment that has posted conspicuous surveillance warning signs.

Audio-enabled doorbell cameras (Ring, Nest, Arlo, Eufy) sit at the boundary. The FTC's 2023 Ring settlement ($5.8 million) requires connected-camera vendors to obtain affirmative express consent for human review of audio or video.

For deeper coverage, see Minnesota Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws and Minnesota Security Camera Laws.

Penalties for illegal recording in Minnesota

Criminal penalties. The default penalty under Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 subd. 4(a) is a felony: up to 5 years imprisonment and up to a $20,000 fine. Under Minn. Stat. § 609.02 subd. 2, any offense carrying possible imprisonment for more than one year is a felony. Each separate intercepted communication can be charged as a separate count. The same felony penalty reaches more than the interception itself: under subd. 1(3) and (4), disclosing or using the contents of a communication you know or have reason to know was illegally intercepted is a separate offense, so forwarding or publishing a call or recording you know was unlawfully obtained carries the same exposure as making it. Subd. 4(b) reduces the penalty for a first offense that is not for a tortious or illegal purpose and not for commercial advantage or private commercial gain, where the communication is a radio communication that is not scrambled or encrypted. Subd. 4(b)(1) makes that a gross misdemeanor (up to 364 days and $3,000 fine). Subd. 4(b)(2) drops it to a fine of not more than $500 where the communication is the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a public land mobile radio service communication, a cordless telephone communication transmitted between the handset and the base unit, or a paging service communication. Subd. 4(c) separately provides that intercepting certain unencrypted satellite transmissions is not an offense unless done for commercial advantage or private financial gain. None of these reductions reaches an in-person oral conversation, and none of them applies to a wire-line call.

Civil penalties. Minn. Stat. § 626A.13 is the most plaintiff-friendly damages structure in any one-party consent state. Subd. 3(b) gives the plaintiff the greater of two prongs:

The plaintiff takes whichever prong is larger. On top of that, subd. 2(2) adds punitive damages in appropriate cases, and subd. 2(3) adds reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs. The statute of limitations (subd. 5) is two years from the date the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation, not from the date of the recording.

Federal exposure under 18 U.S.C. § 2511 runs in parallel. Federal prosecutors in the District of Minnesota typically reach for ECPA in interstate cases or cases where state prosecution is declined. State and federal convictions for the same recording can produce stacked sentences under separate-sovereign principles, though this is uncommon in practice.

Recording the police in Minnesota

Minnesota is in the Eighth Circuit, which has NOT clearly established a First Amendment right to record police on a public sidewalk or at a public protest. This is a material departure from the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, each of which has affirmatively recognized such a right. Minnesotans are in a weaker doctrinal position than people in most peer states.

The most recent binding authority is Molina v. Book, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023), with rehearing en banc denied and certiorari denied February 20, 2024 (No. 23-227). Two National Lawyers Guild legal observers who had watched and recorded the protest left once tear gas was used, regrouped on private property about 550 feet away, and were tear-gassed there minutes later; the 8th Circuit held the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on their claims because observing and recording police-citizen interactions was not a clearly established First Amendment right in 2015. Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021) reached the same result, binding the entire circuit.

Two pieces of pro-citizen authority cabin that posture. Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020) affirmed denial of qualified immunity to an officer who detained a citizen passively observing a traffic stop from 30 to 40 feet away: passive observation IS protected, though as a Fourth Amendment holding against detention without more indication of wrongdoing rather than a First Amendment one. Ness v. City of Bloomington, 11 F.4th 914 (8th Cir. 2021) held Bloomington City Code § 5.21(23), which bars intentionally photographing or recording a child in a city park without parental consent, unconstitutional AS APPLIED to Ness's own photography and video recording of a matter of public controversy at Smith Park. The court expressly declined to reach her facial challenge, applying the rule that "a federal court should not extend its invalidation of a statute further than necessary to dispose of the case before it" (Brockett v. Spokane Arcades). The ordinance was not struck down and remains on the books, so a person recording in a Bloomington park cannot treat it as invalidated.

Practical rule: you may record police in public, but a citizen who faces force during the recording cannot count on a clearly established 1A claim to defeat qualified immunity. Do not interfere with police activity, record from a reasonable distance, and comply with lawful time/place/manner orders.

For detailed treatment of body-worn camera data and access rights under § 626.8473 and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (§§ 13.825 and 13.82), see Minnesota Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in Minnesota

Workplace recording: employees, NLRB, and PELRA

A Minnesota employee who is a party to a workplace conversation may record without telling the employer under § 626A.02 subd. 2(d). An employer may do the same for conversations they participate in. An employer who places a hidden microphone in a break room to capture employee conversations among themselves is NOT a party to those conversations and faces felony and civil exposure.

Under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), a blanket no-recording handbook rule is presumptively unlawful if a reasonable economically dependent employee could read it to chill Section 7 activity; the employer must show a narrowly tailored substantial business interest. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) reinstated Boeing-era prosecutorial discretion but did not overrule Stericycle. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) declares surreptitious recording of NLRA collective-bargaining sessions a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith, but only for bargaining sessions. Minnesota public-sector employers (state agencies, counties, cities, school districts) are governed by Minn. Stat. ch. 179A (PELRA) instead of NLRB jurisdiction, with parallel duty-to-bargain obligations.

For deeper coverage, see Minnesota Workplace Recording Laws.

Deepfakes: 2023 c 58 (HF 1370 / SF 1394)

2023 c 58, signed May 26, 2023, effective August 1, 2023, created three new sections. Minn. Stat. § 617.262 criminalizes nonconsensual deepfake intimate imagery (gross misdemeanor, with felony tiers mirroring § 617.261). Minn. Stat. § 604.32 creates a civil cause of action with a $100,000 civil-penalty cap plus damages, profits, attorney fees, and injunctions; consent to creation or private transmission is not consent to public dissemination; the statute of limitations tolls until discovery. Minn. Stat. § 609.771 criminalizes election deepfakes disseminated within pre-election windows (90 days before a nominating convention, or after absentee voting opens) with intent to injure a candidate; baseline misdemeanor, felony tier for prior conviction. Section 609.771 has faced First Amendment challenges: in Kohls v. Ellison, No. 0:24-cv-03754 (D. Minn.), the preliminary injunction was denied in January 2025 and the Eighth Circuit affirmed on February 9, 2026 on delay grounds without reaching the merits; X Corp. v. Ellison, No. 0:25-cv-01649 (D. Minn.), remains pending, with the cases still pending as of June 2026.

MCDPA biometric overlay

The Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act, Minn. Stat. ch. 325M (Sections 325M.10 to 325M.21) (effective July 31, 2025), classifies voiceprints and faceprints derived from recordings as sensitive biometric data requiring opt-in consumer consent before processing. The MCDPA does not change § 626A.02 for individuals recording their own conversations, but it layers sensitive-data consent obligations on businesses that run voiceprint or facial-recognition analysis on recorded audio or video. The Minnesota Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority; civil penalties up to $7,500 per violation; no private right of action. The 30-day cure period sunset January 31, 2026, so the AG may now sue without offering cure.

Federal overlays

ECPA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 through 2522, supplies the one-party floor at § 2511(2)(d), which § 626A.02 subd. 2(d) mirrors verbatim. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) classifies AI-generated voices in robocalls as "artificial or prerecorded" under the TCPA, requiring prior express written consent. The FCC's One-to-One Consent Rule (FCC 24-24) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit (Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277, Jan. 24, 2025) and the implementing language at 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9) was removed; the pre-existing TCPA consent framework governs. The TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025), criminalizes nonconsensual intimate imagery including AI deepfakes and imposes a 48-hour platform notice-and-takedown obligation; platform compliance deadline was May 19, 2026. Minnesota victims can invoke federal NCII/deepfake remedies alongside state remedies under §§ 617.261, 617.262, 604.31, 604.32, and 609.771.

Recent legal developments

• August 1, 2023: Minnesota deepfake omnibus (2023 c 58) took effect: § 617.262 (criminal deepfake NCII), § 604.32 (civil deepfake NCII, $100,000 cap), § 609.771 (election deepfake, under 1A challenge).
• February 8, 2024: FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 classified AI-generated robocall voices as "artificial or prerecorded" under TCPA.
• February 20, 2024: Supreme Court denied certiorari in Molina v. Book, cementing 8th Circuit qualified-immunity posture on police-recording claims.
• January 24, 2025: 11th Circuit vacated FCC 24-24 One-to-One Consent Rule; FCC subsequently removed implementing language from 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9).
• May 19, 2025: TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12) signed; criminal prohibition on NCII effective immediately; platform takedown compliance deadline May 19, 2026.
• July 31, 2025: Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (Minn. Stat. ch. 325M) took effect; biometric voiceprints and faceprints are sensitive data requiring opt-in consent.
• January 31, 2026: MCDPA 30-day cure period sunset; AG may now bring enforcement without offering cure.
• February 2026: The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction in Kohls v. Ellison (No. 0:24-cv-03754) on delay grounds without reaching the First Amendment merits; X Corp. v. Ellison (No. 0:25-cv-01649) remains pending in D. Minn.

Minnesota recording laws in depth

By type of recording

• Minnesota Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
• Minnesota Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent and Interstate Rules
• Minnesota Video Recording Laws: Public Filming, Privacy, and Penalties
• Minnesota Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections
• Minnesota Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use

By place or relationship

• Minnesota Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Body Camera Rules
• Minnesota Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Privacy Rules
• Minnesota Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights
• Minnesota Security Camera Laws: Residential, Commercial, and Privacy Rules
• Minnesota Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Privacy, and Rights
• Minnesota Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Provider Rules
• Minnesota School Recording Laws: Classrooms, IEP Meetings, and Campus Surveillance

More Minnesota laws

• Minnesota At-Will Employment Laws
• Minnesota Data Privacy Laws
• Minnesota Divorce Laws
• Minnesota Landlord-Tenant Laws
• Minnesota Whistleblower 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 Minnesota attorney.

More Recording and Privacy Laws

• AI Meeting Recording
• Smart Glasses Recording

More Minnesota Laws

• Minnesota AI Meeting Recording Laws
• Minnesota Dashcam Laws
• Minnesota Data Privacy Laws
• Minnesota Deepfake Laws
• Minnesota Employee Monitoring Laws
• Minnesota GPS Tracking Laws
• Minnesota Police Bodycam Laws
• Minnesota Smart Glasses Recording Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Minnesota is a one-party consent state under Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 subd. 2(d). Any participant in a wire, electronic, or oral communication may record it without notifying the other parties. The consent cover disappears if the recording is made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. That exception is in the statute itself and mirrors 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d); Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, 526 N.W.2d 402 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), applied it and required proof of the recorder's purpose.

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

Yes, if you are a party to the call. Section 626A.02 subd. 2(d) authorizes participant recording without notice. The exception evaporates if the recording is for a criminal or tortious purpose. For calls to recipients in two-party states like Illinois, follow the stricter state rule and give notice.

Is illegal recording a felony in Minnesota?

Yes. Under § 626A.02 subd. 4(a), unlawful interception is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $20,000 fine. Subd. 4(b) reduces the penalty for a non-commercial first offense involving an unscrambled radio communication: a gross misdemeanor under subd. 4(b)(1), or a fine of not more than $500 under subd. 4(b)(2) where the communication is the radio portion of a cellular telephone call, a public land mobile radio service communication, a cordless telephone call between handset and base unit, or a paging communication. Subd. 4(c) also excludes certain unencrypted satellite transmissions. An in-person conversation gets no reduction.

How much can I sue for if someone illegally recorded me in Minnesota?

Under § 626A.13 subd. 3(b), you recover the greater of (1) three times your actual damages plus the violator's profits, or (2) $100 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is higher. Punitive damages and attorney fees stack on top. The two-year limitations clock starts when you first have a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation, not the date of the recording.

Can I record the police in Minnesota?

Practically yes, but the 8th Circuit has not clearly established a First Amendment right to record police, which weakens your legal protection compared to peer states. Molina v. Book, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023), cert. denied 2024, and Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021), grant qualified immunity on 1A recording claims. Separately, under the Fourth Amendment, Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020), held that police could not detain a citizen merely for passively observing a police stop from a distance.

Are Ring cameras and nanny cams legal in Minnesota?

Audio-enabled cameras on your own property are generally lawful if you are a party to conversations they capture under § 626A.02 subd. 2(d). However, placing a camera in a bathroom, guest bedroom, changing room, or other place where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy independently violates § 609.746 subd. 1(e) as a gross misdemeanor where the camera is used with the intent to capture that person's intimate parts without consent, regardless of who owns the property. Subd. 1(k) exempts law enforcement in lawful duties, medical facilities, and commercial establishments with posted surveillance signs.

Can my employer record me at work in Minnesota?

An employer who is a party to a workplace conversation may record it. An employer who is not a party (for example, a hidden microphone in a break room) faces felony exposure under § 626A.02 subd. 4(a) and civil exposure under § 626A.13. Under Stericycle, 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), blanket no-recording handbook rules are presumptively unlawful unless narrowly tailored. Minnesota public-sector employers are covered by PELRA (Minn. Stat. ch. 179A) rather than NLRB jurisdiction.

Can I record my doctor or an HR meeting in Minnesota?

Yes. As a participant in the conversation, you may record under § 626A.02 subd. 2(d). HIPAA binds the provider, not the patient. Recording an HR meeting you attend is also lawful. The recording is not made for a criminal or tortious purpose simply because you want documentation.