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 controlling Minnesota appellate authority. The court held that an investigative reporter who used a hidden camera inside the Copelands' home did not violate § 626A.02 (news-gathering is not a tortious purpose), but reversed summary judgment on the homeowners' trespass claim because the reporter's misrepresentation vitiated consent to physical presence. Three things Copeland established that still control: the consent exception applies to in-person conversations as well as phone calls; news-gathering motive alone is not a criminal or tortious purpose under chapter 626A; and other torts 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 independent illegal objectives, exactly where Copeland drew the line.

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.

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), using any device to observe, photograph, or record a person in any place where a reasonable person would expect privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose intimate parts is a gross misdemeanor (up to 364 days jail and $3,000 fine). This covers bathrooms, changing rooms, locker rooms, and tanning booths. 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, no exceptions.

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) carves out a first-offense gross misdemeanor (up to 364 days and $3,000 fine) for unscrambled radio communications not made for tortious or commercial purposes. The radio carve-out has nothing to do with phone calls, video calls, or in-person conversations.

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 attorney-observers were tear-gassed while passively observing protest activity from private property; the 8th Circuit granted qualified immunity, holding the right was not clearly established. 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 40 to 50 feet away: passive observation IS protected. Ness v. City of Bloomington, 11 F.4th 914 (8th Cir. 2021) struck down a Bloomington ordinance prohibiting recording of minors in public parks, holding that recording in a public space implicates First Amendment activity.

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