Minnesota Recording Laws (2026): Minn. Stat. § 626A.02

Minnesota is a one-party consent state. Under Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 subd. 2(d), a private citizen who is a party to a wire, electronic, or oral communication, or who has the prior consent of one party, may lawfully intercept that communication without violating the chapter 626A criminal prohibition. The participant exception, however, evaporates 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." That criminal-or-tortious-purpose limit is not boilerplate. It is the dispositive carveout that Minnesota courts use to reject consent defenses where the recorder had an independent unlawful purpose. (c1, c2)

The leading Minnesota appellate authority on the consent rule and its tortious-purpose limit is Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 526 N.W.2d 402 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that an investigative reporter who used a hidden camera and microphone inside the Copelands' home, while accompanying a veterinarian who had permission to be present, did not violate § 626A.02 because at least one party to each conversation consented and the recording was not made for a criminal or tortious purpose. The court did, however, reverse summary judgment on the homeowners' separate trespass claim, holding that the reporter's misrepresentation of her purpose vitiated their consent to her physical presence. Copeland establishes three doctrinal anchors that still control today: the consent exception applies to in-person conversations as well as phone calls, news-gathering motive does not by itself constitute a tortious or criminal purpose under chapter 626A, and other torts (trespass, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress) can attach to the same factual conduct independent of the wiretap statute. (c3)

Minnesota's defining moat is not the consent rule itself, which mirrors the federal floor in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). The moat is the civil remedy in Minn. Stat. § 626A.13, which is the most plaintiff-friendly damages structure in any one-party-consent state. A victim of illegal recording can recover the GREATER of (1) three times actual damages plus the violator's profits, OR (2) statutory damages of whichever is greater between $100 per day of violation or $10,000, plus punitive damages in appropriate cases under subd. 2(2), plus reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs under subd. 2(3), plus preliminary and equitable relief under subd. 2(1). The civil action must be commenced within two years of the date the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation under subd. 4. The two-year clock runs from discovery, not from the date of the recording. (c4)

Is Minnesota a One-Party Consent State? The Short Answer

Yes, Minnesota is a one-party consent state for audio recording. Under Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 subd. 2(d), a private citizen who is a party to a wire, electronic, or oral communication may record that communication without telling the other parties. Alternatively, a recorder who is not a party may intercept lawfully if at least one party to the communication has given prior consent. The single-party rule applies to phone calls, video calls, in-person conversations, voicemails, and any other "wire, electronic, or oral communication" defined in Minn. Stat. § 626A.01. (c1)

The exception is not absolute. The same subd. 2(d) sentence that authorizes participant recording strips the cover 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." The carveout language is taken almost verbatim from the federal floor in 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), and Minnesota courts apply it the same way the federal courts do: the consent exception evaporates if the recorder's purpose was extortion, blackmail, fraud, harassment, defamation, identity theft, or any other independent crime or civil wrong. The Minnesota Court of Appeals applied this limit in Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc., 526 N.W.2d 402 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), and the holding remains controlling. (c2, c3)

Two practical takeaways follow. First, you do not need to announce the recording, post a sign, or send a written notice for an ordinary participant recording. The federal "beep tone" rule that some older sources cite at 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 was removed from the Code of Federal Regulations on November 20, 2017, and is no longer a live federal regulation. Second, the criminal-or-tortious-purpose limit is the question to ask before you press record. If you are recording to document harassment, preserve evidence of a verbal contract, capture a doctor's instructions, or build a record for a custody dispute, you are squarely inside the consent exception. If you are recording to entrap, blackmail, or fabricate evidence, the consent exception will not save you and you face felony exposure under subd. 4(a) plus civil exposure under § 626A.13.

The ordinary case is straightforward. A Minnesota employee who suspects discrimination can record an HR meeting they attend without telling HR. A Minneapolis tenant can record a phone conversation with a landlord about a deposit return. A St. Paul parent can record their own conversation with a school principal about an IEP plan. None of those scenarios crosses the criminal-or-tortious-purpose line. The hard cases involve an independent unlawful objective, which is exactly where the Copeland court drew the line.

What Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 Actually Says

Minn. Stat. ch. 626A is Minnesota's wiretap chapter, modeled on the federal Title III / Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) framework. The chapter has a familiar structure: definitions at § 626A.01, the criminal prohibition at § 626A.02 subd. 1, exceptions at subd. 2 (authorized peace-officer interception, court-ordered interception, common-carrier maintenance, and the participant-or-prior-consent rule at subd. 2(d)), penalties at subd. 4, and the civil cause of action at § 626A.13. Subdivision 2(c) is the parallel peace-officer one-party exception (no warrant required for color-of-law one-party consent), and subd. 2(b) authorizes court-ordered interception under § 626A.06 on probable cause. (c1)

The penalty structure under subd. 4 is what most readers come for. The default penalty under subd. 4(a) is a felony: up to 5 years imprisonment, up to $20,000 fine, or both. Under Minn. Stat. § 609.02 subd. 2, a felony in Minnesota is any offense carrying possible imprisonment for more than one year, so the five-year maximum places interception squarely in the felony band. Subdivision 4(b) carves out a narrow first-offense reduction to gross misdemeanor for unscrambled radio communications that are not for tortious or commercial purposes (up to 364 days and $3,000, or up to $500 for the scrambled-radio sub-prong). The carve-out exists for amateur-radio and CB-radio scenarios and does not reach phone calls, video calls, or in-person conversations. (c2)

The federal floor sits underneath. ECPA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 through 2522, supplies the same one-party rule at § 2511(2)(d) with the same criminal-or-tortious-purpose limit. The "oral communication" definition in § 626A.01 also matters: it covers in-person speech only when the speaker exhibits an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying that expectation. The "expectation of privacy" element prevents the statute from reaching a loud conversation in a busy restaurant or a public-square speech. "Wire communication" covers traditional landline calls; "electronic communication" covers VoIP, cellular, video calls, and email transmissions. (c5)

Recording in Minnesota by Medium: Phone, In-Person, Video, Hidden Camera

The one-party rule under § 626A.02 subd. 2(d) reaches every medium of voice communication. The practical question is what risk profile attaches to each medium.

Phone calls. A Minnesota participant in a phone call can record that call without telling the other party. This applies to landline calls, cellular calls, and VoIP calls placed through Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, FaceTime, WhatsApp, Signal, and similar platforms. Cellular and VoIP calls are "electronic communications" under § 626A.01, and they are subject to the same rule as wire-line calls. The cross-state choice-of-law problem is treated separately below.

In-person conversations. Recording an in-person conversation you are participating in is lawful under subd. 2(d). The "oral communication" definition in § 626A.01 covers in-person speech only when it is uttered with a reasonable expectation of privacy, so a comment shouted in a busy parking lot or a speech at a public protest may not qualify as a protected "oral communication" in the first place. (c1)

Video calls and voicemail. Video calls are electronic communications; the audio prong runs through § 626A.02. The video prong has no separate consent requirement under chapter 626A, but a video recording made in a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy can independently violate § 609.746. A voicemail you receive is a communication directed at you and can be saved and replayed; intercepting another person's voicemail box is a separate § 626A.02 violation.

Text messages. SMS, iMessage, and similar messaging platforms make the one-party rule functionally automatic because the recipient is a party. Saving and forwarding texts you received does not violate § 626A.02. Reading texts on someone else's unlocked phone without authorization can implicate the federal Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2701 through 2712, and Minnesota's computer-crime statutes in chapter 609.

Hidden cameras. A camera placed inside your own home and operated by you, capturing conversations to which you are a party, generally has § 626A.02 cover. Audio-and-video capture in a place where the recorded person had a reasonable expectation of privacy (a bathroom, guest bedroom, tanning booth, changing room) independently violates § 609.746 even if the audio prong is unproblematic. (c6)

Penalties for Illegal Recording in Minnesota

The criminal exposure for unlawful recording in Minnesota is among the highest in any one-party-consent state. Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 subd. 4(a) sets the default penalty: up to 5 years imprisonment, up to $20,000 fine, or both. The five-year maximum makes the offense a felony under Minn. Stat. § 609.02 subd. 2 (felony = sentence of imprisonment for more than one year possible). Each separate intercepted communication can be charged as a separate count. (c2)

Subdivision 4(b) is the only carve-out, and it is narrow. A first-offense violation involving "the radio portion of a communication that is transmitted by a station for the use of the general public" and that is not "for tortious or illegal purposes or for purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage or private commercial gain" is a gross misdemeanor (up to 364 days and $3,000 fine). The narrower scrambled-radio sub-prong caps at $500. The radio carve-out has nothing to do with phone calls, video calls, in-person conversations, voicemail, hidden cameras, or smart-home devices. If you are tempted to read it as a defense to those scenarios, you are misreading the statute. Treat the felony in subd. 4(a) as the operative penalty for ordinary illegal recording.

The criminal exposure compounds with related offenses. Recording in a place where the recorded person has a reasonable expectation of privacy can independently violate § 609.746 (interference with privacy), discussed below. Distributing an unlawfully obtained recording can independently violate § 626A.02 subd. 1's prohibition on disclosure or use. Distributing nonconsensual intimate imagery captured by recording can independently violate § 617.261 (real-image NCII) or § 617.262 (deepfake NCII). A single fact pattern can produce parallel charges under multiple statutes, and aggressive prosecutors stack them.

Federal exposure under ECPA runs in parallel. 18 U.S.C. § 2511 makes the same conduct a federal felony, with federal sentencing guidelines determining the actual sentence range. Federal prosecutors in the District of Minnesota typically reach for ECPA in interstate cases, in cases involving the federal government as a victim, or in cases where state-court prosecution is declined. A defendant who is convicted of both the state and federal offense for the same recording can face stacked sentences under separate sovereign-authority principles, although this is uncommon in practice.

A defendant who acted in good-faith reliance on a court order or statutory authorization has a complete defense to both criminal and civil liability under § 626A.02 subd. 5. The defense applies, for example, to a telecommunications carrier complying with a court-issued wiretap order, or to a peace officer acting under a valid § 626A.06 order. It does not protect a private actor who guessed wrong about the consent rule or who relied on bad legal advice.

Civil Damages: § 626A.13's Two-Prong Damages Structure

Minnesota's civil remedy under Minn. Stat. § 626A.13 is the single most distinctive feature of the state's recording-law landscape. No other one-party-consent state offers a damages structure this favorable to plaintiffs, and no top-ranking legal-information site explains it correctly. The statute is worth reading carefully because the framing matters. (c4)

Subdivision 3(b) is a TWO-prong "whichever is greater" choice. The plaintiff recovers the greater of:

1. The sum of actual damages suffered by the plaintiff plus any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, multiplied by three; OR
2. Statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $100 per day for each day of violation or $10,000.

Stop and parse that. Prong (1) is treble (actual + profits), not treble actual alone. The violator's profits are folded into the multiplied figure, so a violator who profited handsomely from the recording (sold the audio to a tabloid, used it to win a contract, leveraged it for advertising revenue) faces a much larger prong (1) than the actual damages alone would suggest. Prong (2) is itself a "whichever is greater" calculation. For a single one-day intercept, prong (2) is $10,000. For a 200-day surreptitious-recording program, prong (2) is $20,000 ($100 x 200 days). For a 50-day program, prong (2) is still $10,000 ($100 x 50 = $5,000, less than the $10,000 floor).

The plaintiff then chooses the greater of prong (1) or prong (2). If actual damages plus profits multiplied by three exceeds the prong (2) figure, the plaintiff takes the multiplied actual-plus-profits number. If the multiplied figure is smaller, the plaintiff takes the statutory-damages floor. Either way, the calculation does not stop at subd. 3(b).

Subd. 2(2) layers punitive damages on top in appropriate cases. Punitive damages are not built into either prong; they are a separate recovery for egregious conduct, applied under the ordinary punitive-damages standard in Minn. Stat. § 549.20. Subd. 2(3) provides reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs. Subd. 2(1) authorizes preliminary and equitable relief, which gives plaintiffs an injunctive lever to stop ongoing dissemination.

The statute of limitations under subd. 4 is two years, but the clock runs from "the date the claimant first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation," not from the date of the recording. The discovery rule is generous because covert recording is, by definition, hidden from the victim. A plaintiff who learns in 2026 that they were illegally recorded in 2020 has until 2028 to file, not 2022.

In practice: a Minneapolis sales executive who covertly records a coworker's private phone calls to leverage the audio in a promotion fight faces actual damages (lost wages, emotional distress, defamation-adjacent harms), the violator's profits from the recording (the executive's incremental compensation), and a multiplied figure under prong (1) that may, say, total $90,000 ($30,000 x 3). The statutory floor under prong (2) starts at $10,000 and rises with the duration of the recording. A plaintiff with strong evidence of the multiplied figure takes prong (1); a plaintiff whose actual damages are hard to prove takes prong (2). Either way, punitive damages and attorney fees are layered on top, and the discovery rule keeps the door open longer than a typical defamation or invasion-of-privacy claim.

Some legal-information sites describe § 626A.13 as a "three-way maximum" or a "triple-damages-or-$100/day-or-$10,000 floor." Those framings collapse the two distinct subd. 3(b) prongs into three and misstate the statute. Minnesota plaintiffs and defense counsel should track the two-prong "whichever is greater" structure precisely, because the calculation drives settlement leverage and trial-strategy decisions.

Cross-State Calls: When Minnesota Meets a Two-Party State

Minnesota borders four other states (Wisconsin, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota) and is in the same call-recording region as Illinois. Cross-state calls trigger choice-of-law questions that the state recording statutes do not solve directly. The federal floor at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) supplies the federal one-party rule, but federal preemption does not authorize a recording that is itself a federal offense, and federal preemption does not unilaterally displace state-law civil claims that the more restrictive state recognizes. (c5)

The conservative practice when in doubt is to follow the stricter state's rule. Three concrete scenarios illustrate the problem.

Scenario 1: Minneapolis caller, Chicago recipient. Illinois's Eavesdropping Act, 720 ILCS 5/14-2, is functionally a two-party-consent rule for "private" conversations. A Minneapolis caller who records the call without telling the Chicago recipient is in compliance with Minnesota § 626A.02 subd. 2(d) but in violation of 720 ILCS 5/14-2 if the Illinois recipient had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Illinois courts have asserted jurisdiction over out-of-state recorders in past prosecutions, and the conservative practice is to obtain Illinois-side consent before recording.

Scenario 2: Minneapolis caller, Madison or Des Moines recipient. Wisconsin and Iowa are both one-party-consent states. The recorder in Minneapolis can rely on Minnesota § 626A.02 subd. 2(d) and the federal floor at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). No second-state issue arises. Both Wisconsin (Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(c)) and Iowa (Iowa Code § 808B.2) follow the federal participant rule.

Scenario 3: Minneapolis caller dialing into a multi-party call with participants in California, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. Each two-party state has its own all-party consent rule. The conservative practice for a multi-party call where any participant is in a two-party state is to obtain explicit consent from all participants before recording. The standard "this call may be recorded" announcement at the start of a business call is the easiest way to satisfy every two-party state's rule simultaneously, even though Minnesota itself does not require notice.

A practical compliance rule for Minnesota businesses: if you record any inbound or outbound call to a recipient who may be in a two-party state, deliver a recorded "this call may be recorded for quality assurance and training purposes" notice at the start of the call. The notice gives implied consent under most two-party-state rules and removes the choice-of-law question. The federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the surviving 47 C.F.R. Part 64 Subpart E framework also constrain marketing-call practices nationwide regardless of recording posture. The legacy "beep tone" rule at 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 was removed effective November 20, 2017, and is not a live federal regulation. Do not cite it. (c6, c7)

Recording Police and Public Officials in Minnesota

This is the section where Minnesota readers often arrive expecting a clean "yes" answer that the state's federal-circuit law does not deliver. The Eighth Circuit, which controls Minnesota federal courts, has NOT clearly established a First Amendment right to record police on a public sidewalk or at a public protest. That posture is a material doctrinal departure from the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, each of which has affirmatively recognized a 1A right to record. Minnesotans are in a weaker doctrinal position than peer states.

The most recent binding 8th Circuit authority is Molina v. City of St. Louis, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023), with rehearing en banc denied at 65 F.4th 994 (8th Cir. 2023) and certiorari denied February 20, 2024 (No. 23-227). Two attorney-observers wearing "National Lawyers Guild Legal Observer" hats sued after officers in an armored vehicle fired tear gas canisters at them while they passively observed protest-response activity from private property. The 8th Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity, holding that the right to passively observe and record police-citizen interactions in public was not clearly established at the time of the 2015 incident. The companion authority is Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021), which granted qualified immunity on a First Amendment retaliation claim while reversing on the Fourth Amendment false-arrest and twelve-day property-seizure claims. Robbins arose in Iowa but binds the entire 8th Circuit. (c8, c9)

Two pieces of pro-citizen authority cabin the qualified-immunity posture. Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020) affirmed denial of qualified immunity to an officer who seized a citizen passively observing a traffic stop from 40 to 50 feet away, reasoning that no reasonable officer could conclude that passive observation from a distance was criminal. Chestnut establishes that passive observation IS protected, even though the broader right to record itself remains unclearly established. Ness v. City of Bloomington, 11 F.4th 914 (8th Cir. 2021) is the Minnesota-specific First Amendment as-applied authority. Citizen-journalist Sally Ness challenged a Bloomington (Hennepin County, a Minneapolis suburb) ordinance prohibiting the recording of minors in public parks without parental consent; the 8th Circuit struck down the ordinance as applied, holding that recording in a public space implicates First Amendment activity. Ness should be paired with Molina/Robbins for balanced framing. (c10, c11)

The practical rule is layered. You may record police interactions in public, but a citizen who is the target of police force during the recording cannot count on a clearly established First Amendment claim to defeat qualified immunity in a § 1983 suit. Plaintiffs can succeed on Fourth Amendment claims where the officer's response (detention, seizure, prolonged stop) lacked probable cause or was unreasonable in duration. Passive observation from a distance is protected by Chestnut. Practical conduct: do not interfere with police activity, record from a reasonable distance, comply with lawful time/place/manner orders, and understand that Minnesota citizens are in a weaker doctrinal position than peer states.

Body-worn cameras worn by Minnesota peace officers operate under a separate statutory regime. Minn. Stat. § 626.8473 is the principal body-cam policy statute. Every state and local law enforcement agency using portable recording systems must establish a written policy before implementation, with public comment opportunities and Open Meeting Law (chapter 13D) compliance, and officers must wear the device at the mid-waist or higher to maximize recording capacity. Subdivision 3 contains a categorical public-data carve-out for officer-involved firearm discharges (other than for training or destruction of an animal) and for use-of-force events resulting in substantial bodily harm. Body-cam data classification is governed by Minn. Stat. § 13.825, and general law-enforcement data is governed by Minn. Stat. § 13.82, both within the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act framework. The 2023 amendments at 2023 c 52 art 10 expanded next-of-kin access rights after officer-involved deaths, with inspection rights within 5 days for the deceased's next of kin, legal representative, and the other parent of the deceased's child, and public release within 14 days unless investigation interference is asserted in writing. Recordings of peace officer use of deadly force must be maintained indefinitely. (c12, c13, c14)

Recording at Work: Employees, Employers, NLRB Stericycle, and PELRA

Workplace recording in Minnesota sits at the intersection of three regimes: state recording-consent law under § 626A.02, federal labor law under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) for private-sector employers, and Minnesota's Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA) for state agencies, counties, cities, school districts, and other public-sector employers. The rules sometimes pull in different directions, and Minnesota has historically high private-sector union density (Twin Cities healthcare locals, manufacturing, transit, building trades, food-processing in Greater Minnesota), so labor-law exposure is meaningful.

Employees recording employers. A Minnesota employee is a party to a workplace conversation they participate in (a one-on-one with a supervisor, an HR meeting, a small-group meeting), and may record without telling the employer under § 626A.02 subd. 2(d), provided the recording is not made for a criminal or tortious purpose. This rule has obvious value for documenting harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wage-and-hour violations.

Employers recording employees. An employer who is a party to the conversation may record under the same rule. An employer who is NOT a party (for example, a hidden microphone in a break room capturing employee private conversations among themselves) cannot rely on the participant rule and is exposed to felony liability under § 626A.02 subd. 4(a) and civil liability under § 626A.13. Audio-enabled video surveillance in places where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy (locker rooms, bathrooms, changing areas) independently violates Minn. Stat. § 609.746. (c15)

NLRB Stericycle. Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) is the controlling Board decision on workplace rules. A blanket no-recording or no-photography handbook rule is presumptively unlawful under Section 7 if a reasonable economically dependent employee could read it to chill protected concerted activity. The burden shifts to the employer to show the rule advances a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a more narrowly tailored rule. Minnesota private-sector employers covered by the NLRA must draft no-recording policies narrowly: tailor to legitimate confidentiality, safety, HIPAA, or trade-secret interests, with explicit carve-outs for Section 7 activity. (c16)

NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) and NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) are General Counsel memoranda that operate alongside Stericycle without overruling it. GC 25-05 reinstated Boeing-era prosecutorial discretion and rescinded prior GC enforcement memos; the underlying Stericycle Board law remains intact, but the Board General Counsel's enforcement priorities are narrower. GC 25-07 is a narrow per se rule treating surreptitious recording of NLRA collective-bargaining sessions as a violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3) (duty to bargain in good faith), building on Bartlett-Collins Co., 237 NLRB 770 (1978). GC 25-07 is bargaining-session-specific and does not change the Stericycle analysis for general workplace handbook rules. (c17, c18)

Minnesota public-sector employers. Public employers (state agencies, counties, cities, school districts, regional transit) are not covered by NLRB jurisdiction under the NLRA. Instead, Minn. Stat. ch. 179A (PELRA) imposes parallel duty-to-bargain-in-good-faith obligations. The PELRA-side analysis for surreptitious bargaining-session recording is analogous to GC 25-07's federal NLRA-side rule. Twin Cities public-sector AFSCME locals, large-county labor relations, and Minneapolis and St. Paul school-district bargaining are the principal Minnesota PELRA exposure areas. (c19)

At-will employment and customer call recording. Minnesota is an at-will employment state, and an employer can lawfully terminate an employee for violating a recording policy, even if the recording itself was lawful, subject to Stericycle's narrow-tailoring requirement and to anti-retaliation protections (whistleblowing, EEOC complaints, OSHA reports). For deeper coverage, see Can an employer record conversations without consent. Minnesota businesses may record customer phone calls under the one-party rule because the business representative is a party; the standard "this call may be recorded for quality assurance and training purposes" notice is not required by Minnesota law but resolves the cross-state choice-of-law problem when callers may be in two-party states.

Hidden Cameras, Video, and Minn. Stat. § 609.746

Minnesota draws a sharp doctrinal line between audio recording (governed by chapter 626A) and visual surreptitious recording in private places (governed by Minn. Stat. § 609.746, the interference-with-privacy statute). Hidden-camera and nanny-cam scenarios that capture both audio and video can trigger BOTH statutes, and the analysis must be done independently for each prong. (c20)

Subdivision 1(a) and (b): observation through windows or apertures of a dwelling. A person who enters another's property and surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in (subd. 1(a)) or installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting through (subd. 1(b)) the window or any aperture of a house or place of dwelling, with intent to intrude on the privacy of a member of the household, commits a gross misdemeanor. Standard penalty up to 364 days jail and $3,000 fine.

Subdivision 1(e): private places where intimate parts are exposed. A person who surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting another person in any place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts (as defined in § 609.341 subd. 5), without consent of the person being observed, commits a gross misdemeanor. The (e) provision is the principal statute for bathroom, changing-room, locker-room, and tanning-booth scenarios.

Subdivision 1(f): upskirt-style imaging. A person who surreptitiously photographs, records, or broadcasts under or around the clothing of another person to view the intimate parts or undergarments without consent commits a gross misdemeanor.

Subdivision 1(g) felony aggravator. Repeat offense or minor victim elevates to felony: up to 2 years prison and $5,000 fine.

Subdivision 1(h) felony aggravator. Minor victim plus offender 36 months or more older plus sexual intent elevates further: up to 4 years prison and $5,000 fine.

The doctrinal line between § 626A.02 (audio prong) and § 609.746 (visual prong) matters because hidden cameras typically capture both. A homeowner who installs an audio-and-video nanny cam in the family room can rely on subd. 2(d) for the audio (the homeowner is a party to family conversations), and § 609.746 does not apply because the family room is not a place where a reasonable person has an expectation of intimate-parts privacy. The same nanny cam installed in a guest bedroom or bathroom violates § 609.746 subd. 1(e) regardless of who installed it.

Audio-enabled doorbell cameras (Ring, Nest, Arlo, Eufy, Wyze) sit at the boundary. The 2023 FTC v. Ring settlement ($5.8 million consumer redress) requires connected-camera vendors to obtain affirmative express consent for human review of audio or video. Minnesota households configuring smart cameras should disable continuous human review and limit cloud retention to legitimate security purposes. For deeper coverage of the visual-recording layer, see Is it illegal to video record someone without their consent. (c21)

Minnesota's Deepfake Regime: 2023 c 58 (HF 1370 / SF 1394)

Minnesota was one of the earliest states in the country to enact a comprehensive deepfake regime. 2023 c 58 (HF 1370 / SF 1394), signed by Governor Tim Walz on May 26, 2023, effective August 1, 2023, created three new statutory sections that operate in parallel with the pre-existing real-image regime in § 617.261 and § 604.31. (c22)

§ 617.262 (criminal deepfake NCII). Minn. Stat. § 617.262 makes it a crime to intentionally disseminate a deep fake when the actor knows or reasonably should know that the depicted individual does not consent, and the deep fake realistically depicts intimate parts of another individual presented as the depicted individual's, artificially generated intimate parts so presented, or the depicted individual engaging in a sexual act. The statutory definition of "deep fake" captures both AI-generated and digitally altered media that is so realistic a reasonable person would believe it depicts the person's actual speech or conduct, AND was substantially dependent on technical means. Standard violation is a gross misdemeanor; felony elevation (up to 3 years, $5,000) attaches with aggravators paralleling § 617.261. (c23)

§ 604.32 (civil deepfake NCII). Minn. Stat. § 604.32 creates a civil cause of action with general and special damages, profits, a civil penalty up to $100,000, court costs, attorney fees, and temporary or permanent injunctions with civil fines up to $1,000 per day for violations. The $100,000 cap is ten times the $10,000 cap on the parallel real-image civil regime under § 604.31. An express rule: consent to creation or to voluntary private transmission is NOT consent to public dissemination, blocking the "I sent it to my partner" defense from extending to onward dissemination. The statute of limitations is tolled until the plaintiff discovers the deep fake has been disseminated. (c24)

§ 609.771 (election deepfake). Minn. Stat. § 609.771 criminalizes dissemination of a deep fake within enumerated pre-election windows with intent to injure a candidate or influence the result. Mens rea is knowing OR reckless disregard. Temporal scope: 90 days before a party nominating convention or caucus, 90 days before a presidential nomination primary, or after the start of absentee voting. Standard violation is a gross misdemeanor; felony elevation (up to 5 years, $10,000) attaches for prior conviction or candidate-actor. The statute is currently subject to active First Amendment challenge in Kohls v. Ellison, No. 0:24-cv-03754 (D. Minn., preliminary injunction denied 2024), brought by YouTube satirist Christopher Kohls and Minnesota State Representative Mary Franson. The case remains pending as of May 2026; X Corp. v. Ellison, No. 0:25-cv-01649 (D. Minn.), is a parallel pending challenge. (c25, c26)

The intimate-image regime (§§ 617.262 / 604.32) and the election regime (§ 609.771) have different constitutional postures. Speech depicting identifiable private individuals in intimate contexts receives less First Amendment protection than political speech, so the intimate-image regime has not faced the same constitutional headwinds as § 609.771. Treat them as separate doctrinal tracks: the intimate-image regime is enacted and in force; the election regime is enacted and in force but subject to ongoing constitutional litigation that could narrow or invalidate it.

The federal layer sits on top. The TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (S. 146, 119th Cong.), signed May 19, 2025, creates a federal criminal prohibition on knowingly publishing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI-generated digital forgeries. The criminal prohibition took effect on enactment May 19, 2025. Covered platforms must implement notice-and-removal within 48 hours of a valid request by May 19, 2026, the platform-compliance deadline (nine days from the date of this article). The Federal Trade Commission enforces the platform takedown duty. Minnesota victims have parallel federal and state remedies and can pursue both simultaneously. (c27)

Using a Recording in Court: Admissibility and Authentication

A recording lawfully made under § 626A.02 subd. 2(d) is generally admissible in Minnesota civil and criminal courts subject to the ordinary rules of evidence (relevance, authentication, hearsay, prejudice). Minn. R. Evid. 901 governs authentication: the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims. For audio recordings, authentication typically requires testimony from a participant (or someone familiar with the voices) identifying the speakers, plus a reasonable showing that the recording has not been altered. The chain-of-custody for the file (device, transfer to storage, hash values, working-copy practices) goes to weight rather than admissibility but matters at trial.

A recording made in violation of § 626A.02 (no consent OR consent but for an unlawful purpose) is generally subject to suppression in criminal cases under Minn. Stat. § 626A.04. The statutory exclusionary rule covers any wire or oral communication intercepted in violation of the chapter and any evidence derived therefrom. The recording-maker is also exposed to the felony penalty under subd. 4(a).

Civil cases are more flexible. A recording made in violation of § 626A.02 can sometimes be excluded under common-law privilege or unclean-hands principles, but Minnesota courts also admit unlawfully made recordings where the probative value outweighs the prejudice. The recording-maker is exposed to the § 626A.13 civil action regardless. A plaintiff who sues for divorce or custody using an illegally made recording can find themselves on the receiving end of a separate § 626A.13 counterclaim, and the two-prong damages calculation is unforgiving.

For transactional purposes, a Minnesota party who plans to use a recording at trial should ensure they were a party to the recorded communication, the recording was not made for an unlawful purpose, the original file is preserved unmodified with hash values, and a participant is available to testify as to speakers and date/time/location. A recording that fails any of those tests may still be admissible but will be weakened by every gap.

Federal and Privacy Overlays: ECPA, FCC, MCDPA, TAKE IT DOWN Act

Minnesota recording analysis sits inside a federal and privacy-law overlay that has shifted meaningfully in the past two years. This section consolidates the current federal-law and Minnesota-Consumer-Data-Privacy-Act (MCDPA) posture as of May 2026.

ECPA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 through 2522. The federal one-party-consent floor lives at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). Minnesota's § 626A.02 subd. 2(d) mirrors the federal floor verbatim, including the criminal/tortious-purpose limit. Federal preemption is conditioned on the recording NOT being made for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act, a limit that travels with the federal preemption. The DOJ Justice Manual section 9-7.302 supplies federal-investigator one-party-consent guidance for federal cases in the District of Minnesota. (c5, c28)

FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (AI-generated voices in robocalls). FCC 24-17, released February 8, 2024, classifies AI-generated voices in robocalls as "artificial or prerecorded" under the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, requiring prior express written consent before placement to wireless numbers and to residential lines for marketing. The ruling remains in force as of May 10, 2026. Minnesota consumers receiving AI-cloned-voice calls have a federal TCPA cause of action in addition to any § 626A.02 wiretap analysis. A recipient who is a party to such a call may record under both federal and Minnesota one-party consent. (c29)

FCC 24-24 (One-to-One Consent Rule) (VACATED). The FCC's One-to-One Consent Rule (codified at the revised 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9)) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (decision January 24, 2025), with mandate issued April 30, 2025. The FCC subsequently removed the implementing language from § 64.1200(f)(9). The pre-existing TCPA prior-express-written-consent regime under 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(a)(2)-(3) governs marketing robocalls and texts to Minnesota numbers. Always note the vacatur. (c30)

47 C.F.R. § 64.501 (REMOVED). The legacy carrier recording-disclosure beep-tone rule was removed effective November 20, 2017, when the FCC eliminated several legacy common-carrier recording rules in its biennial regulatory review. Do NOT cite 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 as a live federal regulation. The current framework lives at 47 C.F.R. Part 64 Subpart E, and the FCC's consumer guide on recording telephone conversations supplies plain-English current guidance.

Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (MCDPA), Minn. Stat. ch. 325O. The MCDPA was signed May 24, 2024 (2024 c 117) and became effective July 31, 2025 for most provisions; postsecondary institutions regulated by the Office of Higher Education have until July 31, 2029. Biometric data, including voiceprints derived from audio recordings and faceprints from camera footage, is classified as SENSITIVE DATA requiring opt-in consumer consent before processing. The Minnesota Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority and may bring an action for civil penalties of up to $7,500 per violation and reasonable attorney's fees. The 30-day cure period sunset January 31, 2026, so as of May 10, 2026 the AG may bring enforcement actions without offering a 30-day cure opportunity. There is NO private right of action under the MCDPA. (c31, c32)

The MCDPA does NOT change Minnesota's one-party consent rule for individuals recording their own conversations under § 626A.02 subd. 2(d). It DOES layer additional sensitive-data consent and data-protection-assessment obligations on businesses that derive biometric identifiers (voiceprints from audio recordings, faceprints from camera footage) from recordings they make. A Minnesota call center that records customer calls under the one-party rule and then runs voiceprint analysis on those recordings layers MCDPA biometric-consent obligations on top of the underlying § 626A.02 one-party rule. The same is true of a Minnesota employer who deploys facial-recognition video surveillance.

TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146, 119th Cong.), signed May 19, 2025, criminalizes nonconsensual intimate imagery (including AI deepfakes) and imposes a 48-hour platform notice-and-takedown obligation effective May 19, 2026. The criminal prohibition took effect on enactment. The platform-compliance deadline is May 19, 2026 (nine days from this article). FTC enforces. Minnesota victims of NCII or deepfake recording can invoke the federal notice-and-takedown procedure as of May 19, 2026. The federal regime operates alongside Minnesota's existing § 617.261 (real-image NCII), § 617.262 (criminal deepfake NCII), § 604.31 (real-image civil), § 604.32 (deepfake civil, $100,000 cap), and § 609.771 (election deepfake, under 1A challenge). Minnesota-side enforcement remains state-court; the federal layer is criminal plus FTC-enforced platform takedown. (c27)

HIPAA, Reg F, CALEA. HIPAA Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. Part 164, binds Minnesota covered entities and business associates, not patients. A Minnesota patient may record their own visit under § 626A.02 subd. 2(d). CFPB Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. § 1006.6, governs debt-collection communications; consumers may record their own debt-collection calls under one-party consent, and out-of-state collectors calling into Minnesota from two-party states must comply with the more protective rule. CALEA, 47 U.S.C. §§ 1001 through 1010, imposes engineering obligations on telecom carriers and does not change individual recording-consent rules. (c33, c34)

Common Scenarios

Divorce and custody. A Minnesota spouse can record their own conversations with the other spouse under subd. 2(d), and the recording may be admitted in family court subject to authentication and judicial discretion. A spouse who plants a hidden recorder that captures conversations among the other spouse and a third party is NOT a party to those conversations and cannot rely on subd. 2(d), with felony exposure under § 626A.02 subd. 4(a) and civil exposure under § 626A.13. A parent may not surreptitiously record the other parent's calls with the child by leaving a device with the child, because the recording parent is not a party.

Doctor's appointment. A Minnesota patient may record their own doctor's appointment under one-party consent. HIPAA binds the provider, not the patient. Hospital and clinic no-recording policies are common and a violation can result in dismissal from care, but recording itself is lawful.

Landlord and tenant. A tenant may record conversations with the landlord. A landlord who plants a recorder inside a leased unit without notice violates § 626A.02 if conversations are captured and exposes themselves to § 626A.13 civil damages.

DHS and government interactions. Minnesota residents may record interactions with Department of Human Services workers, county social workers, and other government employees who are participating in conversations with the resident. Government employees acting in their official capacity have reduced privacy expectations in the official conduct of their duties.

More Minnesota laws

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

---

Minnesota Recording Laws by Topic

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

• Minnesota Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
• Minnesota Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use
• Minnesota Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Privacy, and Rights
• Minnesota Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Provider Rules
• Minnesota Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent and Interstate Rules
• Minnesota Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Body Camera Rules
• Minnesota Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Privacy Rules
• Minnesota School Recording Laws: Classrooms, IEP Meetings, and Campus Surveillance
• Minnesota Security Camera Laws: Residential, Commercial, and Privacy Rules
• Minnesota Video Recording Laws: Public Filming, Privacy, and Penalties
• Minnesota Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections
• Minnesota Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights

---