Rhode Island Recording Laws (2026): 11-35-21 + Penalties

By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished October 1, 2017Reviewed May 16, 202648 min read

Rhode Island is a one-party consent state under R.I. Gen. Laws 11-35-21(c)(3), meaning a participant in a conversation may record it without telling the other parties. A non-participant may record only if at least one party has given prior consent. Willful violation is a felony carrying up to five years imprisonment.

Rhode Island is a one-party consent state for recording. Under R.I. Gen. Laws 11-35-21, a participant in a wire, electronic, or oral communication may record it without telling the other parties, and a non-participant may record if at least one party has given prior consent. The private-actor one-party rule at 11-35-21(c)(3) carries a single critical limit: a recording made to facilitate a criminal, tortious, or injurious act loses the consent defense. A willful violation is a felony punishable by imprisonment up to five (5) years, and the civil cause of action at R.I. Gen. Laws 12-5.1-13 yields the greater of actual damages or $100 per day or $1,000 minimum, plus punitive damages and reasonable attorneys' fees.

This page is the Rhode Island recording-law hub on RecordingLaw.com. It walks 11-35-21 and its three (c) exceptions, the 12-5.1-13 civil-remedy formula, the workplace framework from Boudreau v. ATC, the First Circuit Glik plus Rollins pair, the body-worn camera framework at Chapter 42-161 and 270-RICR-60-00-2, the visual-side statute at 11-64-2, the 2025 NCII and deepfake amendment at 11-64-3, the new Chapter 17-30 election-deepfake civil cause, the federal overlay including the TAKE IT DOWN Act May 19, 2026 platform deadline, and an FAQ block. See also the full list of one-party consent states and the two-party consent states.

Rhode Island is a one-party consent state. Under R.I. Gen. Laws 11-35-21(c)(3), it is not unlawful for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication where the person is a party or where one party has given prior consent. The textual basis is the private-actor exception at subsection (c)(3), which mirrors the federal one-party floor at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) almost word for word.

A second exception at 11-35-21(c)(2) authorizes a person acting under color of law (typically a law enforcement officer) to record where that person is a party or one party has consented. A third exception at 11-35-21(c)(1) is a common-carrier safe harbor for switchboard operators and carrier employees acting in the normal course of employment. There is no fourth subsection (c)(4) and no FCC-regulated radio exception in the Rhode Island statute.

The single most-missed nuance is the carve-out at the end of (c)(3). The private-actor one-party rule is unavailable "where the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in the violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or of any state or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act." A party who records a coworker to extort the coworker has not satisfied the consent defense and remains exposed to the felony interception charge at 11-35-21(a). A party who records the same coworker to document harassment for a Title VII complaint is not pursuing a criminal or tortious or injurious purpose and the consent defense holds.

A critical asymmetry runs through (c)(2) and (c)(3): only the private-actor exception carries the criminal-tortious-or-injurious-act carve-out. A Rhode Island officer acting under color of law and consenting under (c)(2) is not subject to the same purpose-based limit on the face of the statute.

Rhode Island one party consent research hands typing on a mechanical keyboard from above

R.I. Gen. Laws 11-35-21: Unauthorized Interception of Wire, Electronic, or Oral Communication

R.I. Gen. Laws 11-35-21 is the Rhode Island criminal wiretap statute. Subsection (a) prohibits three distinct willful acts: (1) willful interception of any wire, electronic, or oral communication; (2) willful disclosure of the contents of an intercepted communication when the speaker knows or has reason to know it was obtained in violation of the section; and (3) willful use of those contents on the same knowledge standard.

The section opens with "Except as otherwise specifically provided in chapter 5.1 of title 12," which means Chapter 12-5.1 (the procedural wiretap framework with court-ordered intercepts) operates as a parallel framework; a law enforcement intercept under a 12-5.1 court order does not violate 11-35-21. Subsection (b) carves out a public-information exception that applies only to the disclosure and use prohibitions, not to the interception prohibition at (a)(1). Content that has become "common knowledge or public information" may be disclosed or used without 11-35-21 liability; the original interception remains illegal if it violated (a)(1).

Statutory definitions at R.I. Gen. Laws 12-5.1-1

The operative definitions for both 11-35-21 and the Chapter 12-5.1 procedural framework live at R.I. Gen. Laws 12-5.1-1. A "wire communication" covers landline calls, cellular calls, voice-over-IP audio, and the audio portion of video calls. An "oral communication" is "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying that expectation," embedding a Katz-style reasonable-expectation-of-privacy element: a face-to-face conversation in a crowded coffee shop on Thayer Street that everyone overhears is not an "oral communication" within the statute; a hushed conversation in a private office is. An "electronic communication" reaches text messages, instant messages, emails, and the video portion of video calls. "Intercept" means "aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device."

The three exceptions at 11-35-21(c)

The statute lists exactly three exceptions to the interception prohibition, not four:

(c)(1) Common-carrier safe harbor. An operator of a switchboard, or an officer, agent, or employee of a communication common carrier whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication, may intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of employment if the activity is a necessary incident to service rendition or to carrier-property protection. The subsection contains an express limit: no common carrier may use service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service-quality checks.

(c)(2) Color-of-law one-party exception. A person acting under color of law may intercept where that person is a party or where one party has given prior consent. No criminal-tortious-or-injurious-act carve-out attaches to (c)(2) on the face of the statute.

(c)(3) Private-actor one-party exception with carve-out. A person not acting under color of law may intercept where the person is a party or where one party has given prior consent, "unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in the violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or of any state or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act." This is the operative consumer rule for Rhode Island residents.

The asymmetry between (c)(2) and (c)(3) is the depth advantage of this page. A private recorder who pursues a separate criminal, tortious, or other injurious purpose forfeits the consent defense; the same limit does not appear on the face of (c)(2) for law enforcement.

State v. Brien (R.I. 2001) on willfulness and the (c)(3) limit

State v. Brien (R.I. 2001) is the seminal Rhode Island Supreme Court interpretation of 11-35-21. The court construed "willfully" in subsection (a) to mean "intentional," consistent with the federal-floor reading at 18 U.S.C. 2511. The court also held that the criminal-tortious-or-injurious-act limit attaches to the (c)(3) party-consent exception itself rather than to the underlying interception elements: where a party records to facilitate a separate crime, tort, or injurious act, the party-consent exception is unavailable.

Brien also distinguished State v. Delaurier, 488 A.2d 688 (R.I. 1985), which had held that police use of an "ordinary, unadulterated AM radio" to overhear private cordless phone conversations did not constitute use of an "intercepting device" because the radio was not "specially designed for surreptitious listening." The 1999 amendment to 11-35-21 (P.L. 1999 ch. 167) added "electronic communications" to the prohibited categories, substantially narrowing Delaurier. For 2026 cellular and wireless communications, 11-35-21 reaches all "electronic communications" regardless of whether the receiving device was specially designed for interception.

Penalty for 11-35-21 violations

A willful violation of subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) is a felony. The statute provides that a violator shall be "imprisoned for not more than five (5) years." No monetary fine appears in the section text; earlier secondary sources that listed a $10,000 fine for 11-35-21 are incorrect. The civil remedy at R.I. Gen. Laws 12-5.1-13 is the separate plaintiff-side track.

Rhode Island 11-35-21 unauthorized interception lapel microphone clipped to a charcoal blazer

Civil Damages Under R.I. Gen. Laws 12-5.1-13: Actual or $100 per Day or $1,000, Whichever Is Higher

R.I. Gen. Laws 12-5.1-13 is the Rhode Island civil cause of action for violations of the wiretap chapter. The damages formula at subsection (a)(1) reads verbatim: "Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages, computed at the rate of one hundred dollars ($100) per day for each day of violation, or one thousand dollars ($1,000), whichever is higher." The "whichever is higher" phrasing is load-bearing: the plaintiff receives the greatest of actual damages, the day-rate floor, or the absolute $1,000 minimum.

Subsection (a)(2) adds "Punitive damages." Subsection (a)(3) adds "Reasonable attorneys' fees and other litigation disbursements reasonably incurred." A Rhode Island plaintiff who establishes a single ten-day course of unlawful interception recovers a minimum of $1,000 (because the $1,000 absolute floor exceeds the $100 daily rate over ten days), plus punitive damages, plus the attorney fees and costs of litigation. The civil cause is widely regarded as one of the strongest plaintiff-side recoveries in any one-party-consent state.

The civil cause runs independently of any criminal prosecution

A plaintiff does not need a criminal conviction under 11-35-21 to sue under 12-5.1-13. The civil cause stands on its own. A Rhode Island spouse who discovers a hidden recording device in a marital bedroom can file a 12-5.1-13 action without ever filing a criminal complaint, and the civil action can proceed on its own timeline. The two tracks may run in parallel where the facts warrant, but the civil-cause path does not depend on the criminal-justice system's prioritization or charging decisions.

The good-faith court-order defense at 12-5.1-13(b)

Subsection (b) provides a complete defense: "Good faith reliance on a court order issued under this chapter shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this section or any other law." Communications common carriers are deemed to have acted in good faith upon receipt of a certified copy of the court order and the representations of the attorney general or a specially designated assistant attorney general. The defense protects officers and carriers acting under a facially valid Chapter 12-5.1 court order even if that order is later found to be defective; the defense does not protect private actors who fabricate or improperly invoke a court order.

Three-year limitations period under R.I. Gen. Laws 9-1-14

Section 12-5.1-13 contains no internal statute of limitations. The three-year personal-injury period at R.I. Gen. Laws 9-1-14(b) governs civil wiretap claims by default. The criminal limitations period for felony violations of 11-35-21 runs on a separate track under R.I. Gen. Laws 12-12-17 (general felony limitations).

Accrual is governed by Boudreau v. Automatic Temperature Controls, Inc., 212 A.3d 594 (R.I. 2019), in which the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the limitations period begins when the plaintiff first had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation, not from the date of the final intercepted communication. The continuing-tort doctrine has limited application to ongoing Wiretap Act violations. A Rhode Island plaintiff who suspects ongoing unlawful interception should consult counsel promptly; waiting beyond three years from the first reasonable opportunity to discover can extinguish the claim.

Rhode Island 12-5.1-13 civil damages law library reading room with brass lamp and books in soft focus

Recording Phone Calls in Rhode Island (Including Interstate Calls)

Rhode Island residents may record their own phone calls without notifying the other parties. The 11-35-21(c)(3) one-party rule applies to wire and electronic communications, which together cover landline calls, cellular calls, voice-over-IP audio, the audio portion of video calls, and text messages. The carve-out at (c)(3) attaches: a Rhode Island caller who records a call to facilitate a separate criminal, tortious, or injurious act loses the consent defense.

Interstate calls: the stricter rule applies for participants in stricter states

A Rhode Island resident calling a participant in a stricter (two-party-consent) state faces a real choice-of-law problem. The general default rule, applied by most courts and by most state attorneys general, is that when a call touches a stricter state, the recording party should comply with the stricter rule. Rhode Island sits in the First Circuit alongside three states with stricter recording rules in at least some contexts.

State	Rule	Statute
Massachusetts	Two-party for any intentional secret recording of wire or oral communications	Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, section 99
Connecticut	Two-party for telephone communications (civil); one-party for in-person under separate criminal provisions	Conn. Gen. Stat. section 52-570d
New Hampshire	Two-party for both wire and oral communications	N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 570-A:2
New York	One-party for in-person; context-specific business-call notification rules apply	N.Y. Penal Law section 250.05

For a Rhode Island resident calling a friend in Massachusetts, Connecticut, or New Hampshire, the safer path is to obtain affirmative consent from every party before recording. The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) sets a one-party floor and does not preempt stricter state law; the more protective rule controls. The civil exposure under a sister-state statute can be substantial, and a Rhode Island plaintiff who recorded a Massachusetts participant without notice could face a Massachusetts ch. 272 section 99 claim even where the Rhode Island recording was facially lawful.

Rhode Island state-law overlay to TCPA

R.I. Gen. Laws Title 5, Chapter 5-61 (Telephone Sales Solicitation Act) is the Rhode Island state-law parallel to the federal TCPA. It prohibits unsolicited telephonic sales calls to residential, mobile, or paging numbers unless the seller has instituted Do-Not-Call procedures in compliance with 47 C.F.R. Part 64 (FCC TCPA rules) or 16 C.F.R. Part 310 (FTC Telemarketing Sales Rule), bars automated dialing-announcing device (ADAD) calls without prior consent, and bars commercial text-message advertisements to cellular numbers without an opt-out mechanism. Rhode Island consumers who receive prohibited robocalls or AI-cloned-voice scam calls have an independent state-law claim alongside TCPA remedies; enforcement runs through the Rhode Island Attorney General Consumer Protection Unit. The Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission regulates rates and service quality but does not have an independent call-recording rule and is not a TCPA enforcement body.

Rhode Island phone recording interstate calls wireless earbuds in their open charging case on a white desk

Recording Police and Government Officials in Rhode Island (First Circuit Trilogy)

Rhode Island citizens have a clearly established First Amendment right to record on-duty law enforcement officers in public, including secret audio recording. The First Circuit, which covers Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island, has the most plaintiff-protective record-the-police jurisprudence of any federal circuit. Two cases control in Rhode Island.

Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)

Glik v. Cunniffe, decided August 26, 2011, is the foundational First Circuit authority. Simon Glik used his cell phone to openly record three Boston police officers arresting another man on the Boston Common in October 2007. The officers arrested Glik for violating the Massachusetts wiretap statute and other charges; the criminal charges were dismissed and Glik sued under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

The First Circuit held that "a citizen's right to film government officials, including law enforcement officers, in the discharge of their duties in a public space is a basic, vital, and well-established liberty safeguarded by the First Amendment." The right was clearly established at the time of the 2007 arrest, so the officers lost qualified immunity. The court also held Glik's Fourth Amendment rights were violated by an arrest without probable cause, because the Massachusetts wiretap statute does not criminalize open, non-secret recording. Because Rhode Island sits within the First Circuit, Glik is binding precedent: a citizen filming a police encounter on a Rhode Island public sidewalk is exercising a clearly established federal constitutional right, and an arresting officer risks personal section 1983 liability with no qualified immunity.

Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020)

Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, decided December 15, 2020, extends Glik to secret recording of government officials. The First Circuit held that the First Amendment protects secret audio recording of government officials performing their official duties in public spaces. The Massachusetts wiretap statute was held unconstitutional as applied to the extent it criminalizes "secret, nonconsensual audio recording of police officers discharging their official duties in public spaces." The court applied intermediate scrutiny and held the statute was not narrowly tailored, emphasizing that secret citizen audio recording of on-duty officers "can constitute newsgathering" protected by the First Amendment.

Rhode Island is already a one-party consent state, so 11-35-21 already permits a recording party to capture audio openly or secretly. Rollins goes further by confirming that any future legislative attempt to impose a "notify before recording police" rule on Rhode Island citizens would be unconstitutional as applied to public recording of on-duty officers. The First Circuit pair scopes to public spaces only. Neither case extends to private property or interference scenarios. A citizen who trespasses, blocks an officer's path, or refuses a lawful order to step back forfeits the protected-newsgathering posture and may face arrest on independent grounds.

Body-worn cameras: Chapter 42-161 and 270-RICR-60-00-2

R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 42-161 (Statewide Body-Worn Camera Program) is the canonical enabling statute, enacted P.L. 2021 ch. 228 and 229 effective July 8, 2021, with five sections at 42-161-1 through 42-161-5. Section 42-161-2 defines a "body-worn camera" as "a video and audio recording device that is carried by, or worn on the body of, a law enforcement officer." Section 42-161-3 establishes the statewide grant program funded by the Attorney General and the Department of Public Safety. Section 42-161-4 directs DPS and the AG, in consultation with the Rhode Island Police Chiefs' Association, to promulgate rules on activation, notification, public access and redaction, privacy, and retention. Section 42-161-5 sets annual reporting requirements.

The operational rules live in 270-RICR-60-00-2, with the current version effective July 22, 2025. The regulation requires officers to activate cameras when responding to a call for service or during investigative or enforcement activity. Automatic activation triggers include light-bar activation, vehicle speed thresholds, taser draw, and firearm holster removal where the technology is available. The regulation expressly states that consent to record is not required for body-worn camera operation. Use-of-force recordings must be released upon substantial completion of investigation (typically within 30 days) unless prohibited by law or court order.

Chapter 42-161 contains no express wiretap exemption. The color-of-law one-party exception at 11-35-21(c)(2) supplies the statutory basis for officer audio capture inside private spaces during enforcement activity. The Rhode Island statute some external sources had previously cited (section 42-28-37) is in fact the accident-report-fee statute and is unrelated to body cameras.

Rhode Island first circuit Glik Rollins record police microphone on a flexible gooseneck arm at an empty witness stand in a paneled courtroom

Video Voyeurism and Hidden Cameras Under R.I. Gen. Laws 11-64-1 and 11-64-2

Rhode Island's audio statute (11-35-21) and its visual-side statute (Chapter 11-64) operate in parallel. A Rhode Island recording can violate one, the other, both, or neither depending on what is captured, where, and for what purpose.

R.I. Gen. Laws 11-64-1 supplies the definitions. An "imaging device" is "any electronic instrument capable of capturing, recording, storing, or transmitting visual images." "Intimate areas" under 11-64-1 include "the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola" (broader than 11-64-3's definition, which is restricted to naked areas the depicted person intended to protect from public view). "Publish" includes posting, displaying, circulating, or making images available to the public.

R.I. Gen. Laws 11-64-2 (Video voyeurism)

R.I. Gen. Laws 11-64-2 prohibits video voyeurism. Subsection (1)(a) makes it a crime when, "for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or stimulation," a person uses an imaging device to capture visual images of the intimate areas of another person without that person's knowledge and consent and under circumstances in which the person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Subsection (1)(b) prohibits intentional dissemination of an image the person knows was obtained in violation of (1)(a). Subsection (2) adds a peeping-tom prong (looking into an occupied dwelling with an imaging device that provides images of the interior, for the same sexual purpose). The penalty under subsection (3) is imprisonment for not more than three (3) years and/or a fine of not more than $5,000.

The sexual-arousal purpose requirement is a critical element. Surreptitious video of intimate areas with a non-sexual motive (a simple invasion of privacy, or a recording made to embarrass a coworker without sexual intent) does not fall under 11-64-2 and would proceed under the common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion tort or other theories.

Doorbell cameras, nanny cams, and dashcams

Rhode Island doorbell cameras, nanny cams, and dashcams sit at the intersection of 11-35-21 (audio) and 11-64-2 (video). Each component category gets its own analysis:

Ring doorbells with audio. The audio track triggers 11-35-21 once a visitor speaks. The one-party rule applies because the homeowner is a party. Public-facing direction is generally permissible because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on the public sidewalk or driveway approach. Bathroom-facing or bedroom-facing capture for a sexual purpose violates 11-64-2; absent that purpose, common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion may attach.
Nanny cams in the homeowner's own home. Video is lawful. Audio capture of in-home conversations follows 11-35-21, with the homeowner-party as the consenting party. Recording a paid nanny's private phone call with a third party where the homeowner is not a party intercepts a communication outside the one-party rule and could trigger liability.
Dashcams. Cabin audio is governed by 11-35-21 (one-party rule, driver-party consents). Section 11-64-2 does not reach a public street view because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy on a public roadway.

The May 2023 FTC settlement with Ring LLC required a $5.8 million consumer-redress payment plus ongoing privacy-program injunctive relief, based on findings that Ring had given employees and contractors broad access to customer video without adequate safeguards. The order requires limited human review absent express informed consent. The settlement applies to Rhode Island consumers using Ring or similar systems; vendor data-handling practices can violate FTC Act section 5 even where the underlying audio capture by the homeowner is lawful under 11-35-21.

Rhode Island 11-64-2 video voyeurism hidden camera dome security camera mounted high on an exterior brick wall

Revenge Porn and AI-Generated Intimate Imagery Under R.I. Gen. Laws 11-64-3 (Amended July 2, 2025)

R.I. Gen. Laws 11-64-3 (Unauthorized dissemination of indecent material) is Rhode Island's non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII) statute. The section was originally enacted in 2018 and significantly expanded in 2025. The 2025 amendment was H 5046 (Rep. Knight) and S 0136 (Sen. Morgan), signed by Governor Daniel J. McKee on July 2, 2025, effective upon passage. The amendment added the phrase "including any image created by a digital device or altered by digitization" to subsection (a)(1), bringing AI-generated and digitally altered intimate images within scope.

After the 2025 amendment, synthesized deepfake nudes of an identifiable adult are criminal in Rhode Island. The statute does not require that the depicted conduct ever actually occurred. A Rhode Island resident who creates or disseminates a synthesized intimate image of a real adult without that adult's consent commits an 11-64-3 violation, regardless of whether the underlying photograph or video was real or generated.

The four-tier penalty ladder

The penalty ladder at subsection (d) contains four discrete tiers, each materially distinct:

Offense	Statutory subsection	Classification	Penalty
First violation	11-64-3(d)	Misdemeanor	Imprisonment up to 1 year, fine up to $1,000, or both
Second or subsequent base violation	11-64-3(d)	Felony	Imprisonment up to 3 years, fine up to $3,000, or both
Sextortion (threat to disclose to obtain a benefit)	11-64-3(e)	Felony	Imprisonment up to 5 years, fine up to $5,000, or both
Removal-extortion (demand for payment to remove)	11-64-3(f)	Felony	Imprisonment up to 5 years, fine up to $5,000, or both

The five-year-and-$5,000 caps apply only to the aggravated sextortion and removal-extortion offenses under (e) and (f). The base second-or-subsequent felony at (d) tops out at three years and $3,000. Earlier secondary sources that listed a flat "5 years and/or $5,000" subsequent-offense penalty conflated the base subsequent felony with the aggravated extortion offenses; the four-tier structure is the operative penalty ladder.

Subsection (g) confirms that violators are not required to register as sex offenders. Subsection (h) provides a broad jurisdictional hook: the offense is committed in Rhode Island if any element or any resulting harm occurs in the state. Subsection (i) preserves Section 230 immunity for interactive computer services, information services, or telecommunications services.

Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act overlay

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. No. 119-12, was signed into law on May 19, 2025. It amends Section 223 of the Communications Act to criminalize the knowing publication of non-consensual intimate visual depictions, including AI-generated deepfakes, of identifiable adults and minors. Covered platforms must implement a notice-and-removal procedure that removes flagged content within 48 hours of valid notice. The criminal prohibition took effect on enactment; the platform-compliance deadline is May 19, 2026. The federal regime preempts nothing in Rhode Island criminal law; a Rhode Island victim can invoke the federal notice-and-takedown procedure alongside the strengthened state remedy at 11-64-3.

Rhode Island 11-64-3 NCII deepfake closed laptop with a small adhesive webcam cover slider visible on the bezel

Rhode Island Election Deepfake Law: Chapter 17-30 (Signed July 2, 2025)

R.I. Gen. Laws Title 17, Chapter 17-30 (Deceptive and Fraudulent Synthetic Media in Election Communications) is a brand-new chapter created by 2025 enactments. H 5872 (Rep. Baginski) and S 0816 (Sen. DiPalma) were signed by Governor Daniel J. McKee on July 2, 2025, effective upon passage. The chapter contains four sections at 17-30-1 through 17-30-4.

Section 17-30-1 defines "synthetic media" as an image, audio, or video recording intentionally manipulated to create a realistic but false image depicting events that did not occur and creating a fundamentally different understanding. Within 90 days before any primary or general election, no candidate, campaign committee, political action committee, political party committee, or independent expenditure group may knowingly distribute "deceptive synthetic media" unless the media includes a disclosure stating that it has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence. Visual disclosure text must be "easily readable" and "no smaller than the largest font size" in the media. Video disclosures must remain visible "for the duration of the video." Audio-only disclosures must be spoken at the beginning, at the end, and at intervals no greater than two minutes.

Section 17-30-2 (Right of action) provides that "A candidate whose appearance, actions, or speech are depicted through the use of synthetic media in violation of section 17-30-1 may seek injunctive or other equitable relief." The court may award general or special damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs to the prevailing party. Three load-bearing limits attach: candidate-only standing (a voter who sees a deceptive deepfake but is not the depicted person has no Chapter 17-30 claim), clear-and-convincing-evidence burden (a deliberate First Amendment guardrail), and civil-only (no criminal penalty attaches). Section 17-30-3 carves out news media, satire and parody, and Section 230 interactive computer services. The chapter does not cover deepfake intimate imagery (which falls under 11-64-3 as amended) or AI-cloned voice on phone calls (where wiretap 11-35-21 attaches if the call is intercepted).

Rhode Island Chapter 17-30 election synthetic media row of server rack LEDs blinking green and amber behind a glass panel door

Recording at Work: Employee and Employer Rules in Rhode Island

Rhode Island's 11-35-21 one-party rule applies to workplace recording. An employee may record a meeting they participate in (a one-on-one with a supervisor, an HR discussion of harassment, a disciplinary review) without notifying the employer, subject to the criminal-tortious-or-injurious-act carve-out at (c)(3). An employer who is a party to a workplace conversation may record without informing the other party for the conversation itself.

Two statutory limits on workplace recording

Limit 1: 11-64-2 video voyeurism. Workplace imaging in places of reasonable expectation of privacy (restrooms, locker rooms, lactation rooms, dressing rooms, changing areas) is constrained by 11-64-2 if the purpose is sexual arousal, gratification, or stimulation. The peeping-tom prong at 11-64-2(2) reaches imaging into occupied spaces with the same purpose. Common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion can attach even where the sexual-purpose element is absent.

Limit 2: 11-64-3 NCII dissemination. Workplace dissemination of intimate imagery (including AI-generated synthetic imagery after the July 2, 2025 amendment) of a coworker or any identifiable adult, without consent, can trigger 11-64-3 liability. The 11-64-3 prohibition reaches dissemination regardless of how the image was originally captured.

NLRB Stericycle and the federal workplace overlay

The federal workplace overlay runs through the National Labor Relations Board. The controlling standard for no-recording handbook policies is Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023). A workplace rule is presumptively unlawful if a reasonable economically dependent employee contemplating Section 7 protected concerted activity could interpret it as chilling those rights. The employer rebuts by showing the rule advances a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a more narrowly tailored rule. Rhode Island is not a right-to-work state, so NLRA Section 7 analysis applies broadly to private-sector workforces.

NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025, Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen) rescinded numerous prior General Counsel memoranda but did not reinstate the Boeing categorical work-rule framework and did not overrule Stericycle. Cowen explicitly framed the rescission as a resource-prioritization shift driven by an unsustainable agency case backlog. Stericycle remains the controlling Board precedent on no-recording rules in Rhode Island as of May 2026. NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) declared surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions a per se violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3) under Bartlett-Collins Co., 237 NLRB 770 (1978). The memo is narrowly scoped to bargaining sessions; it is not a Stericycle clarification.

Boudreau v. Automatic Temperature Controls (R.I. 2019)

Boudreau v. Automatic Temperature Controls, Inc., 212 A.3d 594 (R.I. 2019), is the most recent post-2018 Rhode Island Supreme Court decision applying the Wiretap Act civil-remedy framework in a workplace setting. The plaintiff alleged the employer had installed monitoring software on his work computer that intercepted his emails and online activities without his knowledge. The court affirmed summary judgment for the employer on limitations grounds, holding the limitations period begins when the plaintiff first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation. Two rules follow: 12-5.1-13 civil claims are governed by 9-1-14's three-year personal-injury period, and the continuing-tort doctrine has limited application to ongoing Wiretap Act violations. For deeper detail on workplace-recording rules across jurisdictions, see employer recording rules.

Rhode Island workplace recording HR meeting glass walled conference room with figures behind translucent doors

Recording Court Proceedings and Open Meetings in Rhode Island

Open meetings under R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 42-46

Rhode Island citizens have an implied public right to audio-record and video-record open meetings of public bodies under R.I. Gen. Laws Chapter 42-46 (Open Meetings Act). The Rhode Island Attorney General Open Government Unit has interpreted Chapter 42-46 to imply this right in a line of findings (including Pagliarini v. Kent County Water Authority, OM 06-24 (R.I. Att'y Gen.)). The right is subject to narrowly tailored reasonable restrictions designed to preserve orderly conduct, to safeguard public facilities against damage, or to require fair payment for electricity costs. Rhode Island residents can record city and town councils, school committees, zoning boards, public utility hearings, and other public bodies subject to the Act. Closed executive sessions under section 42-46-5 are the exception. The AG's Open Government portal is the canonical operational resource.

Courtroom recording

Rhode Island courtroom recording is governed by Rhode Island Supreme Court Rules Article VII (Media Coverage of Judicial Proceedings, revised September 2023), administered by courts.ri.gov. The rules allow one TV camera per trial court proceeding and two TV cameras per appellate proceeding under pooling, one still photographer with not more than two cameras, no courthouse-corridor recording, jurors photographed only with consent, and no artificial lighting. Citizen recording of judicial proceedings without prior media-coverage approval is generally prohibited.

Rhode Island open meetings 42-46 three smartphones around a blank document on a wooden desk

Recording in Divorce and Family Court

Rhode Island's one-party consent rule applies in family-court contexts, but legality and admissibility are distinct questions. A Rhode Island spouse recording an in-person conversation with the other spouse is not "intercepting" a communication under 11-35-21 because the recording spouse is a party. Recording a spouse's conversation that the recording party is not part of (bugging the home phone to capture the spouse's calls with a third party, or installing software on the spouse's personal laptop) is a felony under 11-35-21 punishable by up to five years' imprisonment, with the 12-5.1-13 civil cause available alongside.

The criminal-tortious-or-injurious-act carve-out at 11-35-21(c)(3) deserves close attention. A spouse who records to facilitate harassment, blackmail, or another tort loses the one-party-consent shield. Recording in places of reasonable expectation of privacy (the marital bedroom, a shared bathroom) for sexual-arousal purposes can implicate 11-64-2 video voyeurism. A recording made by a party to the conversation may be admissible to impeach or for limited evidentiary purposes subject to the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence and judge discretion, but Family Court judges retain wide discretion to exclude on relevance, prejudice, or authentication grounds. Rhode Island divorce litigants should consult a Rhode Island family-law attorney about both legality and admissibility.

Rhode Island federal overlay ECPA FCC TAKE IT DOWN Act Wi-Fi router with status lights on a wooden side table

Penalties: Felony Sentences and Civil Damages

Rhode Island recording-law violations carry both criminal and civil exposure. The criminal track runs through 11-35-21 (audio), 11-64-2 (video voyeurism), and 11-64-3 (NCII / deepfake). The civil track runs through 12-5.1-13 and any applicable common-law tort.

Offense	Statute	Classification	Penalty
Willful interception, disclosure, or use of wire, electronic, or oral communication	R.I. Gen. Laws 11-35-21	Felony	Imprisonment up to 5 years; no statutory fine
Video voyeurism (sexual-arousal element)	R.I. Gen. Laws 11-64-2	Up to 3 years and/or $5,000	Imprisonment up to 3 years, fine up to $5,000, or both
Unauthorized dissemination of indecent material (first offense)	R.I. Gen. Laws 11-64-3(d)	Misdemeanor	Imprisonment up to 1 year, fine up to $1,000, or both
Unauthorized dissemination of indecent material (base second or subsequent)	R.I. Gen. Laws 11-64-3(d)	Felony	Imprisonment up to 3 years, fine up to $3,000, or both
Sextortion (threat to disclose for benefit)	R.I. Gen. Laws 11-64-3(e)	Felony	Imprisonment up to 5 years, fine up to $5,000, or both
Removal-extortion (payment to remove)	R.I. Gen. Laws 11-64-3(f)	Felony	Imprisonment up to 5 years, fine up to $5,000, or both
Civil cause for unlawful interception	R.I. Gen. Laws 12-5.1-13	Civil	Actual or $100 per day or $1,000 minimum (whichever is higher), plus punitive damages, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation disbursements

A plaintiff may layer the federal ECPA civil cause at 18 U.S.C. 2520 on top of 12-5.1-13. ECPA provides actual or $100 per day or $10,000 (whichever is greater), punitive damages, attorney fees, and equitable relief. The federal floor preempts nothing in Rhode Island law.

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

Federal law operates as a one-party-consent floor for Rhode Island and as a layered set of obligations for carriers, debt collectors, healthcare providers, and platforms. The state rule (11-35-21 plus 12-5.1-13) controls the underlying recording-rights question; the federal overlay adds specific compliance duties and parallel remedies. As of May 2026, the operative federal framework is:

ECPA (18 U.S.C. 2510 to 2522). One-party-consent floor at 2511(2)(d). Civil cause at 2520 provides actual damages or statutory damages of $100 per day or $10,000 (whichever is greater), punitive damages, attorney fees, and equitable relief. The federal floor preempts nothing in Rhode Island law.
DOJ Justice Manual 9-7.302. Federal procedures for warrantless consensual monitoring under 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(c). Internal DOJ policy; no private right of action.
FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 2024). AI-generated voices in calls are "artificial or prerecorded voice" under TCPA 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A). Prior express consent required. In force as of May 2026.
FCC 24-24 / 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(9) one-to-one consent rule. Vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025); mandate issued April 30, 2025. FCC formally reinstated the prior version of 64.1200(f)(9) by final rule effective August 29, 2025.
47 C.F.R. 64.501 ("beep tone" rule). Removed and reserved effective November 20, 2017 (82 Fed. Reg. 48,766). No current federal beep-tone or carrier notification regulation. For Rhode Island, 11-35-21 controls.
NLRB Stericycle (Aug. 2023). Controlling Board standard for workplace handbook rules including no-recording policies. Boeing has not been reinstated.
NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 2025). Housekeeping rescission of prior General Counsel memoranda. Not a Boeing reinstatement. Stericycle remains controlling.
NLRB GC 25-07 (June 2025). Per se 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3) violation for surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions under Bartlett-Collins. Narrow scope.
TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (May 19, 2025). Federal NCII and deepfake criminal prohibition plus 48-hour covered-platform notice-and-removal duty effective May 19, 2026.
HIPAA Privacy Rule (45 C.F.R. Part 164). A patient recording their own conversation with a Rhode Island provider does not violate HIPAA and is permissible under 11-35-21. A provider recording a patient encounter must comply with HIPAA's minimum-necessary and authorization rules for any disclosure.
Regulation F (12 C.F.R. Part 1006). FDCPA implementing rule. Rhode Island consumers may record their own debt-collection calls without notifying the collector under 11-35-21.
CALEA (47 U.S.C. 1001 to 1010). Carrier engineering obligations to enable lawful interception under court order. Rhode Island law enforcement obtaining a Chapter 12-5.1 court order relies on CALEA-mandated carrier capabilities.

Rhode Island Recording Laws by Topic

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

Rhode Island Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
[Rhode Island Dashcam Laws: Mounting, Audio, and Evidence Rules (2026)](/united-states-recording-laws/one-party-consent-states/rhode-island-recording-laws/dashcam/)
Rhode Island Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Renter and Landlord Rights (2026)
Rhode Island Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and HIPAA Rules (2026)
Rhode Island Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Guide (2026)
[Rhode Island Laws on Recording Police: First Circuit Protections (2026)](/united-states-recording-laws/one-party-consent-states/rhode-island-recording-laws/police/)
Rhode Island Public Recording Laws: Filming Rights in Public Spaces (2026)
Rhode Island School Recording Laws: Students, Parents, and Teacher Rights (2026)
Rhode Island Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules (2026)
Rhode Island Video Recording Laws: Surveillance, Filming, and Privacy Rules (2026)
Rhode Island Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and 2025 Deepfake Update (2026)
Rhode Island Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights (2026)

Frequently Asked Questions About Rhode Island Recording Laws

More Rhode Island Laws

Disclaimer

This page presents general legal information about Rhode Island recording laws as of May 13, 2026, including R.I. Gen. Laws 11-35-21, 11-64-1, 11-64-2, 11-64-3, Chapter 12-5.1 (including the civil-remedy section 12-5.1-13), Chapter 17-30, Chapter 42-161, Chapter 42-46, Chapter 5-61, 9-1-14, the implementing regulation at 270-RICR-60-00-2, controlling First Circuit authority in Glik v. Cunniffe and Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, and the federal overlay (ECPA, FCC, NLRB, and the TAKE IT DOWN Act). It does not constitute legal advice. Rhode Island recording law is fact-specific and subject to ongoing case-law and legislative development. Federal developments (TAKE IT DOWN Act platform deadlines, FCC actions, NLRB guidance) and any post-publication Rhode Island legislation may change the framework. If you face a specific legal situation involving recording in Rhode Island, consult a licensed Rhode Island attorney.

Sources and References

()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()

Is Rhode Island a One-Party Consent State? The Short Answer

R.I. Gen. Laws 11-35-21: Unauthorized Interception of Wire, Electronic, or Oral Communication