Missouri

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

Independently fact-checked Editor-reviewed Law current as of November 1, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 2026Reviewed November 2, 202615 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 39 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

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

Missouri is a one-party consent state for audio recording under Mo. Rev. Stat. section 542.402.2(3). A participant in a phone call or wire communication may record without notifying the other parties, but that right vanishes if the recording is made for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act. Unlawful interception is a Class E felony, and victims can sue for a statutory minimum of $10,000 in damages.

Key Takeaways

1Missouri is a one-party consent state for audio under Mo. Rev. Stat. section 542.402.2(3). Any participant in a wire communication may record without telling the other party.
2The consent exception disappears if the recording is made 'for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act,' the exact language of section 542.402.2(3).
3Unlawful interception is a Class E felony: up to 4 years prison (section 558.011) and up to $10,000 fine (section 558.002).
4Civil remedy under section 542.418: actual damages, but not less than the greater of $100 per day or $10,000, whichever is higher, plus punitive damages for willful violations and attorney fees.
5In-person private conversations are doctrinally unsettled. The consent exception is textually anchored to 'wire communication,' and section 542.400(8) defines 'oral communication' with a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy gate. Conservative practice is all-party consent for private in-person recordings.
6Visual surreptitious recording is criminalized separately under section 565.252 (invasion of privacy): Class A misdemeanor, escalating to Class E felony for dissemination, multiple victims, or a prior conviction.
7The Eighth Circuit has not decided whether the First Amendment protects recording police. Molina v. Book (8th Cir. 2023) held that observing and recording police-citizen interactions was not a clearly established First Amendment right in 2015, and Robbins v. City of Des Moines (8th Cir. 2021) assumed a right to record existed but still granted the officers qualified immunity on a First Amendment retaliation claim.

Missouri recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
Consent rule	One-party for wire/phone (section 542.402.2(3))
Main statute	Mo. Rev. Stat. sections 542.400 to 542.422
When it is illegal	Recording without participant status or consent, OR recording for a criminal/tortious purpose
Criminal penalty	Class E felony: up to 4 years prison, up to $10,000 fine
Civil penalty	Actual damages, but not less than the greater of $100/day or $10,000, whichever is higher, plus punitives, attorney fees (section 542.418)
Hidden cameras	Section 565.252: Class A misdemeanor (nude in private place, or upskirt); Class E felony with aggravators
Recording police	Eighth Circuit has not decided whether the First Amendment protects it (Molina 2023, Robbins 2021)

For a full breakdown of every recording scenario, jump to the in-depth guides below.

Missouri lets a participant record a phone call without telling others; illegal interception is a Class E felony with up to 4 years in prison and a $10,000 civil minimum. — Phone calls are clearly one-party in Missouri. For private in-person talks the law is unsettled, so the cautious course is everyone's consent.

Recording in-person conversations in Missouri

Missouri's one-party rule applies clearly to phone calls. For in-person private conversations, the law is genuinely unsettled, and the conservative practice is all-party consent.

The structural issue: the consent exception in section 542.402.2(3) is written around "wire communication." The criminal prohibition in subsection 1(2) separately reaches using a device to intercept "oral communication," but only "when such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication," a narrower, device-behavior condition. An ordinary recorder that neither transmits by radio nor interferes with any transmission arguably falls outside subsection 1(2) entirely. Section 542.400(8) defines "oral communication" as any communication uttered by a person "exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation," but that Katz-style gate only matters once subsection 1(2)'s device-behavior condition is met. No Missouri appellate court has squarely resolved whether the wire-communication consent exception extends to oral-communication captures, or whether an ordinary, non-transmitting recorder is reached by subsection 1(2) at all. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press reads the statute as imposing an all-party rule for in-person private conversations. A competing reading treats Missouri as flatly one-party by analogy to federal Title III.

The practical rule: if the speaker is in a closed office, private home, hotel room, or other setting with a reasonable expectation of privacy, obtain all-party consent before recording. The downside of getting it wrong can be Class E felony exposure if the recording device transmits by radio, plus common-law privacy claims. The section 542.418 civil action and its $10,000 floor cover wire communications such as phone calls, not in-person conversations. In places with no privacy expectation (a crowded restaurant, a public sidewalk, an open public meeting), speech is not an "oral communication" under section 542.400(8), so the statute's in-person offense does not reach it.

The Missouri Bar's Formal Opinion 123 (March 8, 2006) confirms that attorneys may record their own conversations without prior notice, but only when recording is legal in the jurisdiction, and attorneys representing current clients must give notice before recording them.

desk phone with its handset off the hook lying beside the base

Recording phone calls in Missouri

Phone calls are the clearest case. Under section 542.402.2(3), a participant in a landline call, a cellular call, or a VoIP session (Zoom, Teams, FaceTime audio, Google Meet) may record without telling the other party, so long as the purpose is not criminal or tortious.

Missouri's two largest metro areas create routine interstate exposure. St. Louis sits directly across from Illinois, one of the strictest all-party consent states: recording a private call with someone in Belleville or East St. Louis without consent is potentially a Class 4 felony under 720 ILCS 5/14-2. The Kansas City metro crosses into Kansas (one-party), but calls to California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, or Washington can expose you to those states' all-party rules, because courts have not settled which state's law governs a cross-state call. Delaware belongs on the list too, with a caveat: its privacy statute (11 Del. C. 1335(a)(4)) requires all parties' consent to intercept a telephone message, while its wiretap act (11 Del. C. 2402(c)(4)) allows one-party consent, and no controlling appellate ruling resolves the conflict. Connecticut's phone-call rule (Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d) is civil: a violation exposes you to a lawsuit for damages rather than a criminal charge. Oregon is sometimes assumed to belong on this list, but ORS 165.540 lets a participant record a telephone call. Its rule that every participant be specifically informed applies to in-person conversations and, since 2021, to video conference calls, so tell everyone before recording a video call with someone in Oregon.

To compare Missouri's rule with the state on the other end of a call, use our recording consent checker.

The conservative rule for cross-state calls: get verbal consent on the record before pressing record. A simple "I'm recording this call, do you consent?" covers most situations. Business call centers typically use a recorded announcement at the outset, which serves the same purpose.

For more on interstate calls, see Missouri Phone Call Recording Laws.

Missouri small audio recorder and over-ear headphones resting on a stack of legal documents

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Missouri's visual surreptitious-recording statute is section 565.252 (invasion of privacy). It operates independently of the wiretap statute and covers two scenarios.

Prong 1 (nude in private place): Knowingly photographing, filming, or creating an image of a person without their consent, while the person is fully or partially nude, in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Both elements are required: nudity and a privacy expectation.

Prong 2 (upskirt/down-blouse): Knowingly creating an image under or through a person's clothing to view their body or undergarments without consent. No privacy expectation is needed here; this prong reaches public places like stairways, department stores, and sidewalks.

The base offense is a Class A misdemeanor (up to 1 year, up to $2,000 fine). Three aggravators escalate to Class E felony: disseminating the image to another person or online, capturing multiple victims in the same course of conduct, or having a prior invasion-of-privacy conviction.

Ring doorbells and front-porch cameras are generally lawful. Visitors on a front porch typically lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in their visual presence. The audio side is different: if the homeowner is not a party to a porch conversation, the wiretap analysis applies, and the section 542.400(8) privacy-expectation gate governs. Front-porch conversations generally do not meet that gate at typical conversational volumes.

Nanny cams inside the home require care. A camera in a child's bedroom capturing a fully clothed nanny does not trigger section 565.252's nudity prong. A camera in a guest bathroom or domestic worker's private quarters does. For audio: if the homeowner is not a party to a nanny-child conversation, the homeowner is a non-participant and the full wiretap analysis applies. Written consent from caregivers before audio-capable cameras record them is the safest practice.

Dashcams are legal in Missouri. No specific statute restricts them. Audio of conversations inside the cabin falls under the same unsettled in-person rule described above, so telling passengers that the camera records audio is the cautious course. See Missouri Dashcam Laws for detailed analysis.

For more detail, see Missouri Voyeurism Laws and Missouri Security Camera Laws.

Penalties for illegal recording in Missouri

Missouri splits its penalty structure across two statute families. The wiretap regime (section 542.402) governs audio interception. The invasion-of-privacy regime (section 565.252) governs visual surreptitious recording. A separate statute family covers nonconsensual intimate images.

Missouri recording penalties run from a Class A misdemeanor with up to 1 year for invasion of privacy to a Class D felony with up to 7 years for sharing private sexual images. — Illegal audio interception and aggravated invasion of privacy are Class E felonies in Missouri; the base hidden-camera offense is a misdemeanor.

Statute	Conduct	Class	Prison	Fine	Civil
Section 542.402.1	Unlawful audio interception, disclosure, or use	Class E felony	Up to 4 years	Up to $10,000	$10,000 floor or $100/day (section 542.418)
Section 565.252.1	Nude/private visual capture; upskirt	Class A misdemeanor	Up to 1 year	Up to $2,000	None statutory
Section 565.252 (aggravated)	Dissemination, multiple victims, or prior conviction	Class E felony	Up to 4 years	Up to $10,000	None statutory
Section 573.110	Nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images (actual recordings, not AI)	Class D felony; Class C if the victim is a minor or a vulnerable person (effective Aug. 28, 2026, 2026 H.B. 2273)	Up to 7 years; up to 10 years at the Class C tier	Up to $10,000	$10,000 floor plus attorney fees
Section 573.112	Threatening to disseminate	Class E felony (1st offense), rising to Class D (2nd), Class C (3rd+), and Class B if the victim is a minor/vulnerable person or the threat causes serious injury or death (effective Aug. 28, 2026, 2026 H.B. 2273)	Up to 4 years, rising to up to 15 years at the Class B tier	Up to $10,000	None statutory
Section 573.570	Disclosing, or threatening to disclose, an intimate digital depiction (digitally created or altered, including AI)	Class D felony to disclose; Class E felony to threaten; Class C for a repeat offense or a depiction that could reasonably be expected to affect a government proceeding or facilitate violence (effective Aug. 28, 2026, 2026 H.B. 2273)	Up to 7 years (Class D); up to 4 years (Class E); up to 10 years (Class C)	Up to $10,000	None statutory

The section 542.418 civil cause of action is unusually plaintiff-friendly. The floor is the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is larger. Punitive damages are available for willful or intentional violations, on top of that floor. Reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs are also recoverable. Disclosing or using the contents of an unlawfully intercepted wire communication is a separate offense, so a person who forwards a recording knowing, or having reason to know, that it was an illegal interception can face criminal and civil liability under section 542.402.1(3) and (4).

Missouri's $10,000 civil minimum is one of the strongest deterrents in any one-party consent state. It creates real plaintiff leverage in family-law and employment disputes where a wiretap claim layers on top of the primary cause of action.

A good-faith reliance defense exists under section 542.418(3) for those who relied on a court order or on the law-enforcement-authorization provisions of section 542.408. The defense is narrow and does not cover a subjective belief that recording was lawful.

Missouri two people seated across a small table mid-conversation, seen from behind one shoulder

Recording the police in Missouri

The most important Missouri-specific point on this topic: the Eighth Circuit, which covers Missouri, has not decided whether the First Amendment protects recording police. In Molina v. Book (2023) it held that any such right was not clearly established in 2015, and its earlier Chestnut v. Wallace decision (2020) protected a bystander's right to watch police from a distance under the Fourth Amendment, not a right to record. Eight other federal circuits have recognized a right to record police, while the Sixth and D.C. Circuits have not.

Separately, the Eighth Circuit held in Ness v. City of Bloomington (2021) that taking photos and video in public to inform the public is protected speech, although recording unrelated to an expressive purpose may not be. Ness did not involve police.

Molina v. Book, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023) is the lead authority. Two National Lawyers Guild legal observers wearing bright green hats sued after tear-gas canisters landed near them at the St. Louis property where they had regathered, about 550 feet from a protest they had been observing and recording. The Eighth Circuit reversed the denial of qualified immunity on their claims, holding that observing and recording police-citizen interactions was not a clearly established First Amendment right in 2015. Rehearing en banc and certiorari were both denied.

Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021) reinforces this posture. Robbins recorded illegally parked vehicles from a sidewalk adjacent to the Des Moines police station. Officers detained him and held his camera and phone for twelve days. The court granted qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim after assuming a right to record existed but concluding the officers could reasonably suspect Robbins was up to more than simply recording, and reversed on his Fourth Amendment false-arrest and property-seizure claims, finding no probable cause for the arrest and the twelve-day seizure unreasonable, while affirming qualified immunity on the initial Terry stop. This case binds Missouri courts.

Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020) is the pro-citizen bookend. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity to an officer who detained and handcuffed a citizen who testified he was passively observing a traffic stop from thirty to forty feet away, holding that genuine issues of material fact precluded qualified immunity at that stage. Watching police from a distance without interfering is clearly protected against detention. But Chestnut is a Fourth Amendment case; it does not clearly establish a First Amendment right to record.

The combined Eighth Circuit framework: watching police from a distance is protected against detention under the Fourth Amendment (Chestnut); whether the First Amendment protects recording police is undecided, and it was not clearly established in 2015 (Molina); and recording in public for an expressive purpose, such as informing the public, is protected speech (Ness). Missouri citizens can still pursue Fourth Amendment seizure claims (Robbins is the template) and First Amendment retaliation claims backed by evidence of retaliatory motive, but a pure right-to-record theory faces a qualified-immunity wall.

Practically: stay at a reasonable distance, do not interfere with police activity, comply with lawful orders to move back, and do not trespass to record. For a full treatment, see Missouri Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in Missouri

Workplace recording

Missouri's one-party rule lets employees record phone calls they participate in. In-person meetings such as performance reviews, disciplinary meetings, and HR sessions fall under the unsettled in-person rule described above, so the cautious course is to get everyone's consent. The criminal-or-tortious-purpose carve-out in section 542.402.2(3) is the limit: a recording made for blackmail, harassment, or fraud is unlawful regardless of participation. A camera in a restroom, locker room, or changing area that films someone nude or partially nude without consent violates section 565.252, whoever operates it. For workplace no-recording policies, NLRB Stericycle (372 NLRB No. 113, Aug. 2, 2023) remains the Board's standard for judging workplace rules, though the current Board has signaled it may revisit it: a policy is presumptively unlawful if a reasonable employee could read it to chill Section 7 activity, and the employer can rebut that presumption only by showing the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest that a more narrowly tailored rule could not serve. See Missouri Workplace Recording Laws.

Body cameras and the Sunshine Law

Body-cam and dashcam footage is governed by the Missouri Sunshine Law at section 610.100. Mobile video recordings are closed records until the investigation becomes inactive. A person depicted in a recording, their attorney, insurer, or family members may obtain a complete, unaltered copy on written request. That copy comes with a string attached: section 610.100.8 bars the recipient from displaying, disclosing, or describing a nonpublic-location recording until they give direct notice to every non-law-enforcement person seen or heard in it and allow each of them at least ten days to seek a court order blocking the disclosure, and noncompliance exposes the recipient to civil damages. Section 590.700 governs custodial interrogation recording for enumerated serious felonies; it is not a body-cam statute. Missouri has no statewide body-cam mandate. The Missouri Attorney General's Sunshine Law guide is the citizen-facing summary. For public-records requests, see Missouri Laws on Recording in Public.

Deepfakes and AI-generated intimate imagery

Missouri now has a deepfake intimate-image crime. Since August 28, 2026, section 573.570 makes it a crime to disclose, or threaten to disclose, an "intimate digital depiction": a realistic image of an identifiable person, created or altered by digital manipulation, that shows intimate parts or sexual conduct.

Disclosing one with intent to harass, or knowing or recklessly disregarding that it will cause harm, is a Class D felony. Threatening to disclose one, with the same intent or knowledge, is a Class E felony. A repeat offense, or a depiction that could reasonably be expected to affect a government proceeding (including an election) or to facilitate violence, is a Class C felony. A disclaimer saying the image is fake is not a defense.

Section 573.570 came in the same 2026 H.B. 2273 package (short title "Evan's Voice Act") that amends sections 573.110 and 573.112 and adds section 573.114, adding a Class C felony tier to section 573.110 for minor or vulnerable-person victims and escalating section 573.112 to a four-tier structure. Section 573.110 itself still covers actual photographs, films, and digital recordings of real people.

The separate AI-content bill, HB 2321 (which would have set prison terms and fines for publishing nonconsensual AI-generated depictions), was folded into HB 1887, which passed the House but did not pass the Senate before the 2026 session ended. Earlier bills SB 1444 and SB 1424 (both 2024) also failed. Victims of deepfake harassment can also use general harassment and stalking statutes, common-law privacy torts, and the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025), which since May 19, 2026 has required covered platforms to honor 48-hour notice-and-takedown requests for nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI-generated deepfakes.

Federal overlay

The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. 2510-2522) sets a one-party floor that mirrors Missouri's rule. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) classifies AI-generated voices in robocalls as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA, requiring prior express written consent for marketing calls to wireless and residential lines. In January 2025 the Eleventh Circuit vacated the FCC's "One-to-One Consent" rule from its 2023 order (FCC 23-107) in Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC, and the FCC later removed the rule; the pre-existing TCPA consent regime now governs. The FCC's separate 2024 consent-revocation order (FCC 24-24) was not vacated. The older 47 C.F.R. 64.501 carrier-recording-disclosure rule was removed effective November 20, 2017; Missouri enforcement now runs through section 542.402 and the section 542.418 civil action. HIPAA does not regulate patients, so it neither permits nor bars recording your own visit; Missouri's wiretap law and the provider's own policies govern that. A provider that records a visit holds that recording as protected health information and may use it for treatment, payment, and operations without a separate authorization. Regulation F (12 C.F.R. Part 1006) does not set call-recording consent rules. A collector calling across state lines may be subject to the recording law of the other party's state, so collectors calling into all-party consent states should get everyone's consent.

Public meetings and courtrooms

The Missouri Sunshine Law (section 610.020.3) preserves the right to record open meetings of public governmental bodies: city councils, county commissions, school boards, and similar bodies. Recording inside a Missouri courtroom is governed by Missouri Supreme Court rules on courtroom media coverage and is subject to the presiding judge's permission. Juvenile, adoption, domestic-relations, and child-custody proceedings are typically excluded from media coverage.

Recent legal developments

May 19, 2025: TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12) signed. Criminal provisions in force immediately; platform notice-and-takedown compliance deadline was May 19, 2026.
2026 session: HB 2321 (AI-Generated Content Accountability and Privacy Protection Act) was folded into HB 1887, which passed the House but did not pass the Senate before the session ended, so its penalty scheme did not become law.
August 28, 2026: 2026 H.B. 2273 ("Evan's Voice Act") takes effect, amending sections 573.110 and 573.112 and adding section 573.114. Adds a Class C felony tier to section 573.110 for minor or vulnerable-person victims, escalates section 573.112 to a four-tier Class E through Class B structure, and adds a mandatory-restitution requirement. The same act adds section 573.570, making it a felony to disclose or threaten to disclose an intimate digital depiction (a digitally created or altered intimate image).
2024: SB 1444 and SB 1424 (deepfake intimate image bills) failed in the 102nd General Assembly.
Aug. 2, 2023: NLRB Stericycle decision replaced the Boeing categorical framework with a fact-intensive test for workplace no-recording policies.
Feb. 8, 2024: FCC 24-17 classifies AI-cloned voices in robocalls as requiring TCPA consent.
January 24, 2025: Eleventh Circuit (Insurance Marketing Coalition v. FCC) vacated the One-to-One Consent rule from the FCC's 2023 order (FCC 23-107); the FCC later removed it. The separate 2024 consent-revocation order (FCC 24-24) was not vacated.
June 25, 2025: NLRB GC 25-07 treats surreptitious recording of NLRA collective-bargaining sessions as a per se duty-to-bargain violation.

Missouri recording laws in depth

Want to go deeper? These sub-pages cover each Missouri recording context in full.

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Missouri 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 Missouri attorney.

Missouri two office chairs angled toward each other with a small voice recorder on the side table between them

More Missouri Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Missouri is a one-party consent state for audio under Mo. Rev. Stat. section 542.402.2(3). A participant in a phone call or wire communication may record without notifying the other party, provided the recording is not made for a criminal or tortious purpose. For in-person private conversations, the rule is doctrinally unsettled: the consent exception is textually anchored to 'wire communication,' and section 542.400(8) defines 'oral communication' with a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy gate. Conservative practice is all-party consent for sensitive in-person recordings.

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

Yes, if you are a party to the call. Section 542.402.2(3) lets a participant record without notifying the other party. The exception does not apply if the recording is for a criminal or tortious purpose. If the call crosses into a stricter state (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, or Washington), courts have not settled which state's law governs, so following the more protective state's rule is the safe course. Connecticut's all-party rule for calls is civil (Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d), so a violation there means a damages lawsuit rather than a criminal charge. Delaware's statutes conflict on calls, so all-party consent is the safe reading there. Oregon lets a participant record a phone call, so an ordinary call does not trigger this warning, but ORS 165.540 requires that every participant be informed before recording an in-person conversation or a video conference call. St. Louis residents calling into Illinois have routine exposure to Illinois all-party rules.

Is recording someone in person in Missouri a crime?

It depends on the setting and purpose. For private conversations where the speaker has a reasonable expectation of privacy, the law is unsettled: the consent exception in section 542.402.2(3) may not cover oral-communication captures, making all-party consent the prudent choice. For visual recording: section 565.252 criminalizes capturing a person in the nude in a private place or capturing images under clothing without consent. Both offenses carry criminal and civil exposure.

What is the penalty for illegal recording in Missouri?

Criminal: Class E felony under section 542.402.1, punishable by up to 4 years prison and up to $10,000 fine. Civil: the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000 minimum under section 542.418, plus punitive damages for willful violations, plus attorney fees and litigation costs. The $10,000 civil floor is one of the strongest in any one-party consent state.

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in Missouri?

Generally yes, with limits. A doorbell camera facing a front porch typically does not violate section 565.252 because visitors there lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in their visual presence. For audio: if the homeowner is not a party to the conversation, the wiretap analysis applies. Nanny cams are lawful for visual capture in common areas, but cameras in bathrooms or rooms where workers have a privacy expectation can violate section 565.252. For audio capture of caregivers, written consent is the safest practice.

Can I record the police in Missouri?

Yes, but with significant caveats. The Eighth Circuit has not decided whether the First Amendment protects recording police; eight other federal circuits have recognized that right, while the Sixth and D.C. Circuits have not. Molina v. Book (8th Cir. 2023) held that observing and recording police was not a clearly established First Amendment right in 2015, and Robbins v. City of Des Moines (8th Cir. 2021) granted officers qualified immunity on a First Amendment retaliation claim while assuming a right to record existed. Watching police from a distance without interfering is protected against detention under Chestnut v. Wallace (8th Cir. 2020), a Fourth Amendment case, and Ness v. City of Bloomington (8th Cir. 2021) protects recording in public to inform the public, though recording unrelated to an expressive purpose may not be protected. Fourth Amendment seizure claims remain available if officers take your camera or phone without probable cause.

Can my employer record me at work in Missouri?

An employer who is a party to a workplace phone call may record it under Missouri's one-party rule; for in-person conversations, Missouri law is unsettled. A camera in a restroom, locker room, or changing area that films someone nude or partially nude without consent violates section 565.252, whoever operates it. Blanket no-recording policies remain subject to NLRB Stericycle (372 NLRB No. 113, 2023) challenge if they could reasonably chill employees' Section 7 rights. Stericycle remains the Board's standard, though the current Board has signaled it may revisit it.

Has Missouri criminalized deepfakes or AI-generated intimate images?

Yes, since August 28, 2026. Section 573.570, enacted by 2026 H.B. 2273 (Evan's Voice Act), makes it a crime to disclose, or threaten to disclose, an intimate digital depiction: a realistic image of an identifiable person created or altered by digital manipulation that shows intimate parts or sexual conduct. The disclosure or threat must be made with intent to harass, annoy, threaten, alarm, or cause substantial financial or reputational harm, or knowing or recklessly disregarding that it will cause harm. Disclosure is a Class D felony and a threat is a Class E felony. A repeat offense, or a depiction that could reasonably be expected to affect a government proceeding or facilitate violence, is a Class C felony, and a disclaimer that the image is fake is not a defense. Section 573.110 still covers actual photographs, films, and recordings. The separate AI-content bill, HB 2321, did not pass. Victims can also use the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12), whose platform notice-and-removal process has applied since May 19, 2026, to request removal of deepfake content.

Updates

November 2, 2026

We clarified that a camera in a restroom, locker room or changing area violates Missouri section 565.252 when it films someone nude or partially nude without consent, rather than by its placement alone.

November 2, 2026

Added that the NLRB may revisit its Stericycle standard to the employer FAQ, and restored the word 'substantial' to the description of the harm element in Missouri's intimate-digital-depiction law.

November 2, 2026

Corrected the description of Missouri's failed HB 2321 (a criminal-penalty bill for nonconsensual AI depictions, not a labeling bill, which passed only the House), completed the elements and Class C tiers of the new section 573.570 deepfake offense, made cross-state call guidance reflect that courts have not settled which state's law governs, and aligned the NLRB Stericycle rebuttal standard.

November 1, 2026

We corrected the deepfake section (Missouri's new section 573.570 has made disclosing a digitally created intimate image a felony since August 28, 2026, and HB 2321 did not pass), limited the $10,000 civil floor and forwarding liability to wire communications, reframed the Eighth Circuit police-recording law and added Ness v. City of Bloomington, and fixed the FCC order number, the HIPAA and Regulation F statements, the TAKE IT DOWN Act date, and the body-camera notice rule.

November 1, 2026

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

September 30, 2026

Corrected how the page describes Oregon law: a participant may record a phone call there, but every participant must be informed before an in-person conversation or a video conference call is recorded.

September 23, 2026

Corrected the descriptions of Molina v. Book, Robbins v. City of Des Moines, and Chestnut v. Wallace to match what the Eighth Circuit opinions actually say, including the Robbins court assuming a right to record, its split Fourth Amendment ruling, and the Chestnut observation distance.

August 26, 2026

Corrected the name of Missouri’s visual-recording offense: section 565.252 is simply "invasion of privacy," not "invasion of privacy in the second degree," since the degree structure was repealed effective January 1, 2017.

August 15, 2026

Added Missouri's new 2026 felony-tier escalation for sections 573.110 and 573.112 (effective August 28, 2026, H.B. 2273, "Evan's Voice Act"), corrected the good-faith defense citation and the in-person-recording statutory language to match the actual statute text, fixed a dead Attorney General Sunshine Law link, corrected a misnamed case in the changelog, and corrected an interstate-call comparison that had wrongly listed Oregon as requiring all-party consent for phone calls.

August 15, 2026

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources

August 7, 2026

Corrected the section 542.418 civil-remedy description: the $100/day-or-$10,000 figure is a floor under actual damages (you recover actual damages, or that floor if higher), not a separate award added on top of actual damages.

August 7, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

June 5, 2026

Reviewed and approved by an editor

June 5, 2026

Restructured for readability: condensed 12,000-word page to tight core sections (AEO lede, at-a-glance table, in-person consent, phone calls, hidden cameras, penalties table, police recording), compressed special topics (workplace, body cams, deepfakes, federal overlay, public meetings) to single focused paragraphs, added in-depth index by type and relationship, refreshed FAQ. Verified load-bearing facts against revisor.mo.gov primary sources: section 542.402.2(3) consent rule confirmed, section 542.418 $10,000 civil floor confirmed, section 565.252 Class A misdemeanor to Class E felony aggravators confirmed, section 558.011 and 558.002 Class E felony caps confirmed. Updated deepfake status: the Missouri House passed HB 2321, as part of HCS HB 1887, in April 2026; the Senate did not pass it (upgraded from May 10, 2026 snapshot). All banlisted URLs removed; all primary-source citations preserved.

May 10, 2026

Refreshed for 2026. Added Molina v. City of St. Louis, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023), rehearing en banc denied 65 F.4th 994, cert. denied (No. 23-227), as the lead Eighth Circuit record-the-police precedent and noted the material doctrinal divergence from every other federal circuit. Added Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021, not 2025), and Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020), as the supporting Eighth Circuit framework. Resolved the section 542.402.1(2) plus 542.400(8) in-person consent ambiguity conservatively, recommending all-party consent practice for in-person private conversations with reasonable expectation of privacy and framing the Reporters Committee reading as a competing scholarly interpretation. Documented that Missouri has NOT enacted any deepfake or AI-generated intimate image statute as of May 10, 2026 (SB 1444 and SB 1424 in 2024 failed; HB 362 in 2025 plus the 2026 reintroductions SB 1748, SB 1117 'Taylor Swift Act', and SB 1444 are pending). Corrected the body-cam access regime to the Sunshine Law at sections 610.100, 610.205, and 610.021 (older drafts incorrectly relied on section 590.700, which governs custodial-interrogation recording). Updated FCC 24-24 to vacated by the Eleventh Circuit, mandate April 30, 2025, and removed stale 47 C.F.R. 64.501. Added NLRB Stericycle 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025), and GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) workplace overlay. Added TAKE IT DOWN Act federal compliance with platform-compliance deadline of May 19, 2026. Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with revisor.mo.gov, courts.mo.gov, ago.mo.gov, and uscode.house.gov. Populated previously empty keywords array.

May 10, 2026

Refreshed for 2026. Added Molina v. Book, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023), rehearing en banc denied 65 F.4th 994, cert. denied (No. 23-227), as the lead Eighth Circuit record-the-police precedent. Added Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021), and Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020). Resolved the section 542.402.1(2) plus 542.400(8) in-person consent ambiguity conservatively. Documented the status of Missouri's 2026 deepfake bills. Corrected the body-cam access regime to the Sunshine Law at sections 610.100, 610.205, and 610.021 (older drafts incorrectly relied on section 590.700). Updated the FCC one-to-one consent rule (FCC 23-107) to vacated by the Eleventh Circuit. Added NLRB Stericycle, GC 25-05, and GC 25-07 workplace overlay. Added TAKE IT DOWN Act with platform-compliance deadline of May 19, 2026. Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with revisor.mo.gov, courts.mo.gov, ago.mo.gov, and uscode.house.gov.

March 23, 2026

Added wearable recording devices section and 2 FAQs

The Law Behind This Article

This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.

Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVII (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE), Chapter 542

§ 542.402Penalty for illegal wiretapping, permitted activities.In forcecited in 18 of our articles

1. Except as otherwise specifically provided in sections 542.400 to 542.422, a person is guilty of a class E felony and upon conviction shall be punished as provided by law, if such person: (1) Knowingly intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire communication; (2) Knowingly uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication; provided, however, that nothing in sections 542.400 to 542.422 shall be construed to prohibit the use by law enforcement officers of body microphones and transmitters in undercover investigations for the acquisition of evidence and the protection of law enforcement officers and others working under their direction in such investigations; (3) Knowingly discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire communication, when he knows or has reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire communication in…

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov

Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Federal courts in Missouri have applied section 542.402 to covert audio recording. Fotoohighiam v. The City of Columbia Missouri (2025) let a wiretap count over recorded attorney-client jail calls proceed, with no prior consent shown, and Ward (2026) found a claim over a secretly recorded workplace conversation would not be futile.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514)“…nn. § 750 .539e (West 1991); Minn. Stat. § 626A.02 (2000); Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 (2000); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-702 (19…”
Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A. (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1999, 191 F.3d 463)“…p. 1995); Minn.Stat. Ann. §§ 626A.02, 626A.13 (West 1998); Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 542.402 , 542.418 (1996); Mont.Code Ann. § 45-8…”
John Doe v. SSM Health Care Corporation (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2025, 126 F.4th 1329)✓Patients alleged a hospital's patient portal secretly sent health data to Facebook, pleading a Missouri wiretap claim under 542.402; the Eighth Circuit addressed only removal, held the wiretap count did not change that analysis, and affirmed remand without reaching its merits.

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Missouri Smart Glasses Recording Laws, Missouri Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Missouri Dashcam Laws: Mounting Rules, Audio Recording, and Evidence (2026)

§ 542.418Use of contents of wiretap in civil action, limitations on — illegal wiretap, cause of action, damages, attorney fees and costs — good faith reliance on court order a prima facie defense.In forcecited in 12 of our articles

1. The contents of any wire communication or evidence derived therefrom shall not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any civil or administrative proceeding, except in civil actions brought pursuant to this section. 2. Any person whose wire communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of sections 542.400 to 542.422 shall: (1) Have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use such communications; and (2) Be entitled to recover from any such person: (a) Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars a day for each day of violation or ten thousand dollars whichever is greater; (b) Punitive damages on a showing of a willful or intentional violation of sections 542.400 to 542.422; and (c) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. 3. A good faith reliance on a court order or on the provisions of section 542.408 shall constitute a prima facie defense to any civil or criminal action brought under sections 542.400 to 542.422.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov

Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Phillips v. American Motorist Insurance Co. (Missouri Court of Appeals 1999, 996 S.W.2d 584)“…int on appeal is that the trial court erred in holding that § 542.418, RSMo 1994, 1 of the Missouri Wi…”
Ward (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2026)“…e Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402 is stated as a criminal statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.418 creates a private right of action in a…”
Fotoohighiam v. The City of Columbia Missouri (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2025)“…red. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.418.2. However, it is not unlawful under th…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Missouri Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Consent, Missouri Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent (2026), Missouri Phone Call Recording Laws: Consent Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP

§ 542.400Definitions.In forcecited in 7 of our articles

As used in sections 542.400 to 542.422, the following words and phrases mean: (1) "Aggrieved person", a person who was a party to any intercepted wire communication or a person against whom the interception was directed; (2) "Communication common carrier", an individual or corporation undertaking to transport messages for compensation; (3) "Contents", when used with respect to any wire communication, includes any information concerning the identity of the parties, the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication; (4) "Court of competent jurisdiction", any circuit court having general criminal jurisdiction within the territorial jurisdiction where the communication is to be intercepted including any circuit judge specially assigned by the supreme court of Missouri pursuant to section 542.404; (5) "Electronic, mechanical, or other device", any device or apparatus which can be used to intercept a wire communication other than: (a) Any telephone or telegraph instrument, equipment or facility, or any component thereof, owned by the user or furnished to the subscriber or user by a communications common carrier in the ordinary course of its business and being used by…

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov

Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Phillips v. American Motorist Insurance Co. (Missouri Court of Appeals 1999, 996 S.W.2d 584)“…Senate Bill 693 which became effective on January 1, 1995. § 542.400, RSMo Supp.1995. The Wiretap Act is found in…”
Lou Angel John Dilliner Scott Malone v. Thomas L. Williams Sylvia A. Byrnes-Ales Donna Humphrey the City of Webb City, a Municipal Corporation (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 1993, 12 F.3d 786)“…988 & Supp. IV1992), and Missouri wiretap law, Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 542.400-.424 (Supp. 1992). We affirm. An…”
Ward (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2026)“…p statute. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.400 et seq. are the Missouri wiretap statut…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Missouri AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Missouri Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026, Missouri Surveillance Camera Laws: Video and Audio (2027)

Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 565

§ 565.252Invasion of privacy, penalty.In forcecited in 13 of our articles

1. A person commits the offense of invasion of privacy if he or she knowingly: (1) Photographs, films, videotapes, produces, or otherwise creates an image of another person, without the person's consent, while the person is in a state of full or partial nudity and is in a place where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy; or (2) Photographs, films, videotapes, produces, or otherwise creates an image of another person under or through the clothing worn by that other person for the purpose of viewing the body of or the undergarments worn by that other person without that person's consent.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov

Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

United States v. Alexander (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2009, 574 F.3d 484)“…contends, because the Missouri invasioh-of-privacy statute, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 565.252, only prohibits the filming of a nude p…”
T.S.H. v. Green (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2021, 996 F.3d 915)“…e where one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252.1(1). Reasonable officers could have be…”
United States v. Michael Alexander (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2009)“…contends, because the Missouri invasion-of-privacy statute, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.252, only prohibits the filming of a nude p…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Missouri Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and Neighbor Rules, Missouri Video Recording Laws: Public Spaces, Private Property, and Consent Rules, Missouri Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Privacy Protections

Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 573

§ 573.110Nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images, offense of — definitions — elements — exemptions — immunity from liability, when — penalty — private cause of action, when.In forcecited in 7 of our articles

1. As used in this section and section 573.112, the following terms mean: (1) "Computer", a device that accepts, processes, stores, retrieves, or outputs data and includes, but is not limited to, auxiliary storage and telecommunications devices connected to computers; (2) "Computer program", a series of coded instructions or statements in a form acceptable to a computer that causes the computer to process data and supply the results of the data processing; (3) "Data", a representation in any form of information, knowledge, facts, concepts, or instructions including, but not limited to, program documentation, that is prepared or has been prepared in a formalized manner and is stored or processed in or transmitted by a computer or in a system or network. Data is considered property and may be in any form including, but not limited to, printouts, magnetic or optical storage media, punch cards, data stored internally in the memory of the computer, or data stored externally that is accessible by the computer; (4) "Image", a photograph, film, videotape, digital recording, or other depiction or portrayal of an object, including a human body; (5) "Intimate parts", the fully…

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov

Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

United States v. Anthony Madison (Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 2026)“…and nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.110, though the state grand jury later retu…”
Gray (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2025)“…it knows how to say so in the statute itself. See, e.g., Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.110.7 (“In addition to the criminal penalti…”
Soule v. Langley Recycling, Inc. (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2020)“…sexual images of her without her consent, in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 573.110. Now before the Cou…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Missouri Deepfake Laws: Are Deepfakes Illegal? (2027), Is Blackmail Illegal in Missouri? Extortion Laws and Penalties, Missouri Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties

§ 573.112Threatening the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images, offense of — elements — penalty.In forcecited in 6 of our articles

1. A person commits the offense of threatening the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images if he or she gains or attempts to gain anything of value, or coerces or attempts to coerce another person to act or refrain from acting, by threatening to disseminate an image of another person, which was obtained under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know or understand that the image was to remain private, against the will of such person: (1) Who is at least eighteen years of age; (2) Who is identifiable from the image itself or information displayed in connection with the image; and (3) Who is engaged in a sexual act or whose intimate parts are exposed, in whole or in part. 2. The offense of threatening the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images is a class E felony.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov

Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 558

§ 558.011Sentence of imprisonment, terms — conditional release.In forcecited in 18 of our articles

1. The authorized terms of imprisonment, including both prison and conditional release terms, are: (1) For a class A felony, a term of years not less than ten years and not to exceed thirty years, or life imprisonment; (2) For a class B felony, a term of years not less than five years and not to exceed fifteen years; (3) For a class C felony, a term of years not less than three years and not to exceed ten years; (4) For a class D felony, a term of years not to exceed seven years; (5) For a class E felony, a term of years not to exceed four years; (6) For a class A misdemeanor, a term not to exceed one year; (7) For a class B misdemeanor, a term not to exceed six months; (8) For a class C misdemeanor, a term not to exceed fifteen days.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov

Cited in 128 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Rentschler v. Nixon (Supreme Court of Missouri 2010, 311 S.W.3d 783)“…When all were sentenced, the conditional release statute, section 558.011, RSMo 1978, was silent regarding whether viol…”
Hall v. Missouri Bd. of Probation and Parole (Missouri Court of Appeals 1999, 10 S.W.3d 540)“…court erroneously declared and applied the law by applying § 558.011, RSMo 1994, as opposed to the 1986 version, t…”
State v. Quisenberry (Supreme Court of Missouri 1982, 639 S.W.2d 579)“…If not, court imposition of a longer sentence is error. Section 558.011, RSMo Cum.Supp.1981, provides in pertinent pa…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Missouri Dog Bite Laws: Liability and Victim Rights, Missouri Age of Consent Laws: Statutes, Penalties and Reporting, Missouri Assault Laws: Degrees, Felony Assault and Penalties (2026)

§ 558.002Fines for felonies.In forcecited in 13 of our articles

1. Except as otherwise provided for an offense outside this code, a person who has been convicted of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine which does not exceed: (1) For a class C, D, or E felony, ten thousand dollars; (2) For a class A misdemeanor, two thousand dollars; (3) For a class B misdemeanor, one thousand dollars; (4) For a class C misdemeanor, seven hundred fifty dollars; (5) For a class D misdemeanor, five hundred dollars; (6) For an infraction, four hundred dollars; or (7) If the person has gained money or property through the commission of the offense, to pay an amount, fixed by the court, not exceeding double the amount of the person's gain from the commission of the offense.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov

Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

STATE OF MISSOURI v. WARREN DALE BRANNING, Defendant-Respondent (Missouri Court of Appeals 2024)“…unishable upon conviction under Sections 558.011 and 558.002, RSMo, in that on or about August 18, 2021, i…”
State of Missouri v. Ashley Colville (Supreme Court of Missouri 2024)“…punishable upon conviction under Sections 558.011 and 558.002, RSMo, in that on or about September 2…”
State of Missouri v. Andrew P. Minnick (Missouri Court of Appeals 2023)“…viction under Sections 562.012, 566.100, 558.011, and 558.002, RSMo, in that on or about October 18,…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Missouri Peace Disturbance and Trespass Laws: Penalties (2026), Missouri Embezzlement Laws: Stealing, Forgery and Penalties (2026), Missouri Felony Classes and Misdemeanor Penalties (2026)

Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXIX (CONDUCT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS), Chapter 610

§ 610.100Arrest and incident records — definitions — available to public — closed records, when — action for disclosure of investigative report authorized, costs — application to open incident and arrest reports, violations, civil penalty — identity of victim of sexual offense — confidentiality of recording.In forcecited in 9 of our articles

1. As used in sections 610.100 to 610.150, the following words and phrases shall mean: (1) "Arrest", an actual restraint of the person of the defendant, or by his or her submission to the custody of the officer, under authority of a warrant or otherwise for a criminal violation which results in the issuance of a summons or the person being booked; (2) "Arrest report", a record of a law enforcement agency of an arrest and of any detention or confinement incident thereto together with the charge therefor; (3) "Inactive", an investigation in which no further action will be taken by a law enforcement agency or officer for any of the following reasons: (a) A decision by the law enforcement agency not to pursue the case; (b) Expiration of the time to file criminal charges pursuant to the applicable statute of limitations, or ten years after the commission of the offense; whichever date earliest occurs; (c) Finality of the convictions of all persons convicted on the basis of the information contained in the investigative report, by exhaustion of or expiration of all rights of appeal of such persons; (4) "Incident report", a record of a law enforcement agency consisting of…

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-02 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov

Cited in 29 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Buckler v. Johnson County Sheriff's Department (1989) held section 610.100 permits closure of an arrest record but does not authorize expungement, which rests on a court's equitable power. D.K.B. v. Toelke (1995) held the 1994 amendment closing pre-arrest investigative reports did not remove the remedies in section 610.027.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Buckler v. Johnson County Sheriff's Department (Missouri Court of Appeals 1989, 798 S.W.2d 155)✓A man arrested for investigation of rape but never charged asked to erase the record; the court held section 610.100 allows only closure and not expungement, then found extraordinary circumstances letting it order expungement under its equitable power.
D.K.B. v. Toelke (Missouri Court of Appeals 1995, 903 S.W.2d 267)✓A mother won access to a sheriff's investigation file, then lost fines and fees after a 1994 amendment closed pre-arrest investigative reports; the court held that amendment to section 610.100 did not withdraw the remedies in section 610.027 and remanded.
Opinion No. (1994) (Missouri Attorney General Reports 1994)✓Asked how the 1994 amendment worked, the Attorney General opined that section 610.100 closes investigative reports mandatorily until an arrest is made, while incident reports stay open except for 911 information and the name of a victim who can identify an assailant at large.

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Missouri Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Legal Limits, Missouri License Plate Reader Laws (2026), Are Autopsy Reports Public in Missouri? (2026 Guide)

§ 610.021Closed meetings and closed records authorized when, exceptions.In force

Except to the extent disclosure is otherwise required by law, a public governmental body is authorized to close meetings, records and votes, to the extent they relate to the following: (1) Legal actions, causes of action or litigation involving a public governmental body and any confidential or privileged communications between a public governmental body or its representatives and its attorneys. However, any minutes, vote or settlement agreement relating to legal actions, causes of action or litigation involving a public governmental body or any agent or entity representing its interests or acting on its behalf or with its authority, including any insurance company acting on behalf of a public government body as its insured, shall be made public upon final disposition of the matter voted upon or upon the signing by the parties of the settlement agreement, unless, prior to final disposition, the settlement agreement is ordered closed by a court after a written finding that the adverse impact to a plaintiff or plaintiffs to the action clearly outweighs the public policy considerations of section 610.011, however, the amount of any moneys paid by, or on behalf of, the public…

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov

Cited in 39 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Opinion No. (1997) (Missouri Attorney General Reports 1997)“…a similar issue with respect to the disclosure required by Section 610.021 , RSMo Supp. 1987, relating to the disclosure…”
Opinion No. (1995) (Missouri Attorney General Reports 1995)“…ing closure of the meeting (i.e. subsections 1, 2, and 3 of Section 610.021 , RSMo 1994) or is it necessary to state the r…”
Opinion No. (1988) (Missouri Attorney General Reports 1988)“…RSMo, commonly known as the "Sunshine Law." Subsection 1 of Section 610.021 , RSMo Supp. 1987, as enacted in 1987, provide…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

§ 610.205Crime scene photographs and video recordings closed records, when — disclosure to next-of-kin or by court order — inapplicability.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

1. Crime scene photographs and video recordings, including photographs and video recordings created or produced by a state or local agency or by a perpetrator or suspect at a crime scene, which depict or describe a deceased person in a state of dismemberment, decapitation, or similar mutilation including, without limitation, where the deceased person's genitalia are exposed, shall be considered closed records and shall not be subject to disclosure under the provisions of this chapter; provided, however, that this section shall not prohibit disclosure of such material to the deceased's next of kin or to an individual who has secured a written release from the next of kin. It shall be the responsibility of the next of kin to show proof of the familial relationship. For purposes of such access, the deceased's next of kin shall be: (1) The spouse of the deceased if living; (2) If there is no living spouse of the deceased, an adult child of the deceased; or (3) If there is no living spouse or adult child, a parent of the deceased.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov

Revised Statutes of Missouri, Title XXXVIII (CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS), Chapter 590

§ 590.700Definitions — recording required for certain crimes — may be recorded, when — written policy required — violation, penalty.In force

1. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean: (1) "Custodial interrogation", the questioning of a person under arrest, who is no longer at the scene of the crime, by a member of a law enforcement agency along with the answers and other statements of the person questioned. "Custodial interrogation" shall not include: (a) A situation in which a person voluntarily agrees to meet with a member of a law enforcement agency; (b) A detention by a law enforcement agency that has not risen to the level of an arrest; (c) Questioning that is routinely asked during the processing of the arrest of the suspect; (d) Questioning pursuant to an alcohol influence report; (e) Questioning during the transportation of a suspect; (2) "Recorded" and "recording", any form of audiotape, videotape, motion picture, or digital recording.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mo.gov

Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Davis v. Brownlee (District Court, E.D. Missouri 2021)“…child abuse, or child kidnapping. . .when feasible. Mo.Rev.Stat.§590.700.…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Connecticut General Statutes, Title 52 (Civil Actions), Chapter 925

§ 52-570dAction for illegal recording of private telephonic communications.In forcecited in 56 of our articles

(a) No person shall use any instrument, device or equipment to record an oral private telephonic communication unless the use of such instrument, device or equipment (1) is preceded by consent of all parties to the communication and such prior consent either is obtained in writing or is part of, and obtained at the start of, the recording, or (2) is preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning and is part of the communication by the recording party, or (3) is accompanied by an automatic tone warning device which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at intervals of approximately fifteen seconds during the communication while such instrument, device or equipment is in use.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov

Cited in 22 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp. (1998) held section 52-570d creates a cause of action unknown at common law that is strictly construed, and does not reach a third party's rerecording of an already illegal tape. Jezouit v. Malloy (2019) held the statute does not waive the state's sovereign immunity from suit.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp. (Connecticut Appellate Court 1998, 47 Conn. App. 764)✓A girlfriend secretly taped a radio employee's call, and a coworker re-recorded that tape and used it to get him fired. The court held section 52-570d, strictly construed, bars taping a private call but not a third party's re-recording of an already illegal tape.
Jezouit v. Malloy (Connecticut Appellate Court 2019, 193 Conn. App. 576)“…his complaint because (1) he brought his claim pursuant to General Statutes § 52-570d, which he contends waives sovereign imm…”
State v. Skok (Supreme Court of Connecticut 2015)“…on without the consent of all parties to the communication. General Statutes § 52-570d (a) prohibits the use of ‘‘any instrume…”

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?, Can You Record ICE Agents? Know Your Rights by State (2026)

Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 165: Offenses Involving Fraud or Deception

§ 165.540Obtaining contents of communicationsIn forcecited in 49 of our articles

(1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 or 133.726 or subsections (2) to (8) of this section, a person may not: (a) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a telecommunication or a radio communication to which the person is not a participant, by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, unless consent is given by at least one participant. (b) Tamper with the wires, connections, boxes, fuses, circuits, lines or any other equipment or facilities of a telecommunication or radio communication company over which messages are transmitted, with the intent to obtain unlawfully the contents of a telecommunication or radio communication to which the person is not a participant. (c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.

Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov

Cited in 76 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026

In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Fleetwood (2000) applied ORS 165.540 to body wire evidence, holding that words spoken into a telephone are a telecommunication under subsection (1)(a) and that the (5)(a)(B) exception fails unless the officer or the officer's agent shares reciprocally in the conversation, so the recordings were inadmissible.

Opinions citing this section in our collection:

State v. Klein (Oregon Supreme Court 2012, 352 Or. 302)“…eing 3 recorded. Conversations recorded in violation of ORS 165.540 are not admissible in 4 court excep…”
North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Oliver (Oregon Supreme Court 1979, 286 Or. 639)✓A lumber wholesaler secretly monitored traders' calls; on de novo review the court said the practice may have violated ORS 165.540 but refused to rest unclean hands on it, since the ex-employee's calls were never monitored. The employer's noncompete suit failed on other grounds.
State v. Fleetwood (Oregon Supreme Court 2000, 331 Or. 511)✓A detective wired an informant and recorded the suspect's side of a phone call and his talks with his mother and a juvenile seller; the court held those interceptions violated ORS 165.540(1)(a) and (1)(c) because the informant was not a participant, and upheld suppression.