South Dakota

South Dakota Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

Independently fact-checked Editor-reviewed Law current as of August 15, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 2026Reviewed August 15, 202613 min read

Key Takeaways

1South Dakota is a one-party consent state under SDCL 23A-35A-20. Any sender, receiver, or person present during a conversation may record it without telling anyone else. The controlling case is State v. Braddock, 452 N.W.2d 785 (S.D. 1990).
2Illegal interception under SDCL 23A-35A-20 is a Class 5 felony: up to 5 years in a state correctional facility and a $10,000 fine under SDCL 22-6-1(8). Prior guides that listed a Class 6 penalty were wrong.
3South Dakota has no statutory civil cause of action under Chapter 23A-35A. Civil plaintiffs use common-law invasion of privacy as confirmed in Gantvoort v. Ranschau, 2022 S.D. 22, plus the federal cause of action at 18 U.S.C. 2520 (statutory damages of $100/day or $10,000, plus punitive damages and attorney fees).
4Hidden cameras in private places are governed by SDCL 22-21-1 (Class 1 misdemeanor), which bars installing any unauthorized recording device without consent of those entitled to privacy there. Voyeuristic recording of intimate acts is covered by SDCL 22-21-4.
5South Dakota enacted two deepfake statutes: SB 164 (2025) bars unlabeled political AI deepfakes within 90 days of an election (Class 1 misdemeanor); SB 41 (2026, effective July 1, 2026) adds a Class 5 felony tier to SDCL 22-21-4 subdivision (3) for AI-generated fabricated intimate material depicting any identifiable individual, with no age qualifier in the statutory text (up to 5 years and $10,000).
6The Eighth Circuit has NOT established a clearly recognized First Amendment right to record police. Chestnut v. Wallace (8th Cir. 2020) covers passive observation only. Robbins (2021) and Molina (2023, cert. denied 2024) both declined to extend that right to active recording.

South Dakota is a one-party consent state for recording. Under SDCL 23A-35A-20, any party to a conversation may record it without notifying the other participants. The South Dakota Supreme Court confirmed this rule in State v. Braddock, 452 N.W.2d 785 (S.D. 1990). Recording without consent is a Class 5 felony, and victims may pursue civil relief under federal law and common-law tort.

South Dakota recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
Consent rule	One-party consent
Main statute
When recording is illegal	When done by someone not a party and without any party's consent
Criminal penalty	Class 5 felony: up to 5 years and $10,000 ((8))
Civil remedy	No state statutory cause; federal + common-law invasion of privacy (Gantvoort)
Hidden cameras	(Class 1 misdemeanor); for intimate/voyeuristic recording
Recording police	Legally permissible under state law; no clearly established federal First Amendment right in the 8th Circuit

For in-depth treatment of every context, see the South Dakota recording laws in depth section below.

Recording in-person conversations in South Dakota

SDCL 23A-35A-20 criminalizes interception only by someone who is not a sender, receiver, or person present at the conversation. The moment one party to the conversation consents (including the recorder themselves), the conduct falls entirely outside the prohibition. There is no notice requirement. If you are part of the conversation, you can record it.

The statute's structure is the inverse of most state wiretap laws. Instead of allowing recording as an exception to a general prohibition, it defines the criminal as an outsider who lacks any party's consent. The South Dakota Supreme Court made this explicit in State v. Braddock, 452 N.W.2d 785, 788 (S.D. 1990), holding that one-party consent removes the communication from the chapter's reach altogether.

For example, if you take a call with your landlord and record it, that is lawful: you are a party. If your neighbor places a listening device on your fence to capture your backyard conversations without your knowledge, that is a Class 5 felony: they are an outsider without any party's consent.

The federal Wiretap Act at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) sets the same one-party floor for interstate communications, adding one explicit limit: one-party recording done for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act is not protected. South Dakota's statute does not repeat that caveat on its face, but the federal floor applies to any interstate wire or electronic communication.

South Dakota clip-on lavalier microphone attached to a jacket lapel in tight close-up, shallow focus

Recording phone calls in South Dakota

South Dakota's one-party rule extends to phone calls. expressly covers wire and electronic communications, which the chapter's definitions reach across landline, cellular, VoIP, and the audio portion of video calls. A South Dakota party to a call may record without notice.

The cross-border rule matters most for South Dakota callers. When one party is in a stricter all-party consent state, courts and commentators apply the "stricter state governs" default. The all-party states include California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Two more states need a hedge rather than a flat listing: Connecticut's criminal eavesdropping law is one-party consent, but a separate civil statute, C.G.S. 52-570d, exposes a recorder to civil liability for recording a phone call without all-party consent. Delaware is contested, with 11 Del. C. 2402(c)(4) permitting interception by a party or with one party's consent while 11 Del. C. 1335(a)(4) requires the consent of all parties, an unresolved tension in the code. If you are calling into any of those states, get explicit consent at the start of the call before recording.

Montana is the most relevant cross-border exception. Under MCA 45-8-213, Montana requires that all parties to a conversation know it is being recorded (MCA 45-8-213 frames the offense around recording without the knowledge of all parties, with narrow notice-based exceptions). A South Dakota resident calling into Montana should announce the recording at the start of the call.

For a full treatment of recording calls from South Dakota, see South Dakota Phone Call Recording Laws.

South Dakota desk phone handset lifted slightly off its cradle on an office desk with a coiled cord, warm lamp light

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

South Dakota's audio-side statute (SDCL 23A-35A-20) and its visual-privacy statute (SDCL 22-21-1) operate independently. A hidden camera that captures audio can trigger both.

prohibits two things, both Class 1 misdemeanors. First, trespassing on property with intent to eavesdrop on or surveil someone in a private place. Second, installing or using any unauthorized observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting device in a private place without the consent of persons entitled to privacy there. Installation alone is sufficient: a camera placed in a guest bathroom violates the section even if it never records anyone.

For voyeuristic recording, SDCL 22-21-4 applies. It bars photographing or recording someone in states of undress or sexual activity without consent under circumstances where they expect privacy, as well as distributing such recordings. A standard violation is a Class 1 misdemeanor (up to 1 year, $2,000). The penalty escalates to a Class 6 felony (up to 2 years, $4,000) when the victim is 17 or younger and the perpetrator is at least 21. After July 1, 2026, SB 41 upgrades subdivision (3) (digitally fabricated intimate material) to a Class 5 felony (up to 5 years, $10,000) for AI-generated fabricated intimate material depicting any identifiable individual, with no age qualifier in the statutory text (see Special Topics below).

A Ring doorbell aimed at a public-facing porch or driveway is generally lawful. The homeowner is a party to any visitor-directed conversation (one-party rule), and no private place is captured. A camera that sweeps a neighbor's fenced backyard, bathroom window, or other reasonable-expectation-of-privacy area can trigger SDCL 22-21-1 liability. On drones: South Dakota has no dedicated drone-recording statute; a drone capturing someone in a private place falls under SDCL 22-21-1's device-installation prohibition, with FAA Part 107 governing the airspace side.

For more, see South Dakota Security Camera Laws and South Dakota Voyeurism Laws.

South Dakota dome security camera in the corner of an office ceiling, soft interior daylight

Penalties for illegal recording in South Dakota

A violation of SDCL 23A-35A-20 is a Class 5 felony. Under SDCL 22-6-1(8), this means up to 5 years imprisonment in a state correctional facility and a fine of up to $10,000. The court may impose imprisonment, the fine, or both. Many older secondary sources graded this offense at Class 6 (2 years, $4,000); that grading is wrong. The criminal statute of limitations is 7 years under SDCL 23A-42-2.

Offense	Statute	Class	Max penalty
Interception without consent (audio/wire)	SDCL 23A-35A-20	Class 5 felony	5 years, $10,000
Trespass-to-eavesdrop or unauthorized device	SDCL 22-21-1	Class 1 misdemeanor	1 year, $2,000
Window-peeking		Class 1 misdemeanor	1 year, $2,000
Voyeuristic recording or distribution		Class 1 misdemeanor	1 year, $2,000
Voyeuristic recording or distribution, repeat violation	SDCL 22-21-4	Class 6 felony	2 years, $4,000
Voyeuristic recording, victim under 18, perpetrator 21+	SDCL 22-21-4	Class 6 felony	2 years, $4,000
AI-deepfake fabricated intimate material, any identifiable individual (effective July 1, 2026)	SDCL 22-21-4 (as amended by SB 41)	Class 5 felony	5 years, $10,000
Political deepfake within 90 days of election	SB 164 (2025)	Class 1 misdemeanor	1 year, $2,000

On the civil side, South Dakota has no state statutory civil cause of action under Chapter 23A-35A. SDCL 23A-35A-25 is a pen-register "Contents of application" section, not a civil-recovery section. Victims pursue two paths: (1) common-law invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion) as confirmed by the South Dakota Supreme Court in Gantvoort v. Ranschau, 2022 S.D. 22, and (2) the federal civil cause under 18 U.S.C. 2520, which provides actual damages or statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day or $10,000, punitive damages in appropriate cases, and reasonable attorney fees. The civil statute of limitations is 3 years for the common-law claim under SDCL 15-2-14 and 2 years for the federal claim under (e).

Gantvoort extended civil liability beyond the recorder to third parties who knowingly assist in further processing unlawfully obtained recordings. An attorney or paralegal who receives a clearly unlawful recording from a divorce client and downloads it to process for litigation may face aiding-and-abetting liability for invasion of privacy.

South Dakota has no statute governing the disclosure or publication of a recording once it exists. SDCL 23A-35A-20 criminalizes only the overhearing or recording itself; unlike Alabama () or North Dakota (N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-15-02(1)(b)), Chapter 23A-35A does not separately criminalize divulging or using an unlawfully obtained recording. An innocent recipient who played no part in an illegal interception, such as a journalist who receives a leaked recording, is also protected by the First Amendment: in Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court held that publishing a lawfully obtained recording of an unlawfully intercepted communication on a matter of public concern cannot be punished under a state or federal wiretap statute, so long as the publisher did not participate in the interception.

South Dakota wooden gavel on a sound block on a judge's bench

Recording the police in South Dakota

Under South Dakota law, recording on-duty officers in public is lawful. SDCL 23A-35A-20 does not reach a recorder who is present at the scene: the recorder is a "person present" acting with at least their own one-party consent.

The federal civil-rights side is more complicated. South Dakota sits in the Eighth Circuit, which has NOT recognized a clearly established First Amendment right to record police. Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020), established a right to passively observe police-citizen interactions from a distance, but expressly did not reach active recording. Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021), and Molina v. Book, No. 21-1830 (8th Cir. Feb. 2, 2023) (cert. denied Feb. 20, 2024), both granted qualified immunity to officers on First Amendment retaliation claims for recording, declining to extend Chestnut to a recording right.

A South Dakota plaintiff alleging retaliation for recording police faces a qualified-immunity barrier that does not exist in the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, or 11th Circuits. Framing the claim under Chestnut (passive observation, not active recording) gives a better path. Practical tips: stay back, do not interfere, do not touch or block officers, and do not refuse lawful orders even while recording.

For more, see South Dakota Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in South Dakota

Workplace recording and NLRB Stericycle

South Dakota's one-party rule means an employee who is a party to a workplace conversation may record without notifying their employer or coworkers. The federal NLRB overlay applies to covered employers. Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), remains controlling Board precedent: a blanket no-recording policy that would reasonably chill Section 7 activity (documenting unsafe conditions, gathering wage-and-hour evidence, union organizing) is presumptively unlawful. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) was a housekeeping rescission of 29 prior GC memos and did NOT reinstate Boeing or overrule Stericycle. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) treats surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining negotiation sessions as a per se Section 8 violation, but is narrowly scoped to formal CBA sessions only. South Dakota is a right-to-work state under SD Constitution art. VI, sec. 2.

For detail, see South Dakota Workplace Recording Laws.

Body-worn cameras and open records

South Dakota has no dedicated body-worn camera statute and no SDCL 23-3-45.1. Access to body-cam and dash-cam footage is governed only by the general law-enforcement records exemption at SDCL 1-27-1.5(5), which exempts records from active law-enforcement investigations. The 2020 BWC bill failed; no replacement has passed through the 101st Legislative Assembly. The South Dakota Highway Patrol operates both in-car video and body cameras under departmental policy, with no statewide retention floor, activation mandate, or release framework. Public FOIA-style requests for footage are routinely denied; release happens through discovery in prosecutions.

AI deepfakes and NCII

South Dakota has two active deepfake statutes. SB 164 (2025), signed March 25, 2025, bars dissemination of unlabeled AI-generated political content within 90 days of an election with intent to harm a candidate (Class 1 misdemeanor; exempts broadcasters, satire, parody). SB 41 (2026), signed March 17, 2026, amends SDCL 22-21-4 to add a Class 5 felony (up to 5 years and $10,000 under (8)) for the creation, possession, or sharing of computer-generated deepfake intimate images depicting an identifiable individual under subdivision (3); the statutory text carries no age qualifier. Effective July 1, 2026. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025), adds federal criminal exposure for NCII deepfakes immediately on enactment, with covered-platform 48-hour notice-and-removal obligations effective May 19, 2026.

Federal overlay: ECPA, FCC, and TCPA

The federal Wiretap Act at 18 U.S.C. 2511 is the floor that South Dakota's one-party rule mirrors. On the TCPA side: FCC 23-107's one-to-one consent rule was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (Jan. 24, 2025, mandate Apr. 30, 2025). FCC 24-24 (consent-revocation framework, consumers may revoke by any reasonable means, honored within 10 business days) was NOT vacated and remains in force. FCC 24-17 (AI-generated voices fall within the TCPA's "artificial or prerecorded voice" restriction) also remains in force. The old 47 C.F.R. 64.501 "beep tone" rule was removed in 2017 by FCC 17-95 and is not live federal law.

Recent legal developments

SB 41 (2026): Signed March 17, 2026 by Governor Rhoden; adds Class 5 felony to SDCL 22-21-4 subdivision (3) for AI-generated fabricated intimate material depicting any identifiable individual, with no age qualifier in the statutory text (up to 5 years and $10,000); effective July 1, 2026.
SB 164 (2025): Signed March 25, 2025 by Governor Rhoden; political AI deepfake disclosure requirement within 90 days of election; Class 1 misdemeanor; in force.
TAKE IT DOWN Act (May 2025): Federal criminal coverage for NCII deepfakes live since May 19, 2025; platform takedown obligations live since May 19, 2026.
FCC 23-107 vacated (Jan. 2025): One-to-one TCPA consent rule eliminated; FCC 24-24 consent-revocation framework remains.
NLRB GC 25-07 (June 2025): Surreptitious bargaining-session recording treated as per se unfair labor practice; narrowly scoped.
No BWC bill: The 2020 body-worn camera bill failed; no replacement enacted through the 101st Assembly.

South Dakota recording laws in depth

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More South Dakota 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 South Dakota attorney.

More South Dakota Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is South Dakota a one-party or two-party consent state?

South Dakota is a one-party consent state under SDCL 23A-35A-20. Any sender, receiver, or person present during a conversation may record it without notifying the other parties. The South Dakota Supreme Court confirmed this rule in State v. Braddock, 452 N.W.2d 785 (S.D. 1990). South Dakota does not require all-party consent.

Is illegal recording a felony in South Dakota?

Yes. Recording without consent under SDCL 23A-35A-20 is a Class 5 felony, punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment in a state correctional facility and a $10,000 fine under SDCL 22-6-1(8). Older guides that list a 2-year Class 6 penalty are incorrect. The criminal statute of limitations is 7 years under SDCL 23A-42-2.

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

Yes, if you are a party to the call. South Dakota's one-party rule under SDCL 23A-35A-20 covers phone calls. The exception is cross-border calls: if the other party is in an all-party consent state (California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington, or Montana for electronic communications), or in Connecticut (one-party criminally, but civil liability for phone recording without all-party consent under C.G.S. 52-570d) or Delaware (contested, between a one-party interception provision and an all-party privacy provision), the stricter rule applies and you should announce the recording.

Can I sue someone for recording me illegally in South Dakota?

South Dakota has no state statutory civil cause of action under Chapter 23A-35A. You have two civil paths: a common-law invasion-of-privacy claim as recognized in Gantvoort v. Ranschau, 2022 S.D. 22, and a federal claim under 18 U.S.C. 2520 (statutory damages of $100 per day or $10,000, plus punitive damages and attorney fees, with a 2-year limitations period). Both paths can be pursued together.

Can I publish or share a recording I legally made in South Dakota?

Yes. SDCL 23A-35A-20 criminalizes only the act of overhearing or recording without consent; it does not separately restrict disclosing or publishing a recording you lawfully made as a party or with a party's consent. Even someone who innocently receives an illegally recorded conversation, such as a journalist, is generally protected by the First Amendment from wiretap liability for publishing it if the recording concerns a matter of public concern, under Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001).

Is a Ring doorbell or home security camera legal in South Dakota?

Generally yes, for cameras aimed at public-facing areas like a porch or driveway. For the audio side, the homeowner is a party to visitor-directed conversations and the one-party rule applies. For the visual side, SDCL 22-21-1 bars cameras pointed into private places: a camera that captures a neighbor's bathroom window or fenced backyard can trigger Class 1 misdemeanor liability. Cameras in your own bathroom or bedroom require the consent of anyone using those spaces.

Can I record police in South Dakota?

Under state law, yes: SDCL 23A-35A-20 does not reach a recorder who is present at the scene. The federal civil-rights side is harder. The Eighth Circuit has not established a clearly recognized First Amendment right to record police. Chestnut v. Wallace (8th Cir. 2020) covers passive observation only; Robbins (2021) and Molina (2023, cert. denied 2024) both declined to extend that right to active recording. A South Dakota plaintiff alleging retaliation for recording police faces a substantial qualified-immunity barrier.

Can my employer ban me from recording in the workplace?

An employer can have a no-recording policy and enforce it through discipline or termination under South Dakota at-will employment rules. But under NLRB Stericycle (2023), a blanket no-recording policy that chills Section 7 activity (documenting safety violations, organizing, gathering wage evidence) is presumptively unlawful for covered employers. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 2025) did not reinstate the old Boeing standard. Narrowly drawn policies tied to legitimate interests such as HIPAA or trade secrets are more defensible.

Does South Dakota have a deepfake law?

Yes, two. SB 164 (2025), signed March 25, 2025, bars unlabeled AI political deepfakes within 90 days of a South Dakota election (Class 1 misdemeanor; media and parody are exempt). SB 41 (2026), signed March 17, 2026, adds a Class 5 felony to SDCL 22-21-4 subdivision (3) for AI-generated fabricated intimate material depicting any identifiable individual, with no age qualifier in the statutory text (up to 5 years and $10,000), effective July 1, 2026. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act also provides criminal coverage for NCII deepfakes and platform takedown obligations.

Updates

August 15, 2026

Corrected the description of South Dakota's new AI deepfake felony (SDCL 22-21-4(3), added by SB 41) to remove an invented adults-only limitation that the statute's text does not contain, hedged the interstate phone-call consent list to reflect that Connecticut's all-party rule is civil-only (its criminal law is one-party) and Delaware's rule is legally contested, and added the repeat-offense Class 6 felony enhancement for voyeuristic recording that the page had omitted.

August 15, 2026

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

August 9, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

August 7, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

June 5, 2026

Reviewed and approved by an editor

June 5, 2026

Restructured page for readability: added AEO lede, at-a-glance table, organized body into canonical sections (in-person, phone, hidden cameras, penalties, police, special topics), condensed SDCL statute deep-dives and federal overlay into tight special-topics subsections, added in-depth sub-page index. All statutes and cases preserved. No substantive fact changes: Class 5 felony grading for SDCL 23A-35A-20 confirmed, SB 41 (2026) deepfake felony confirmed (effective July 1, 2026), SB 164 (2025) political deepfake confirmed, Gantvoort civil pathway confirmed, Eighth Circuit police-recording qualified-immunity gap (Chestnut/Robbins/Molina) confirmed, FCC 23-107 vacatur confirmed, FCC 24-24 survival confirmed, Stericycle still controlling confirmed, no BWC statute confirmed.

May 14, 2026

Refreshed for 2026. Corrected the SDCL 23A-35A-20 grading to a Class 5 felony (5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000 under SDCL 22-6-1(7)); the prior Class 6 framing was wrong. Anchored the consent framework on the foundational decision in State v. Braddock, 452 N.W.2d 785 (S.D. 1990), which holds that one-party consent removes a communication from the interception prohibition. Surfaced the load-bearing differentiator that South Dakota has NO state-law statutory civil cause of action under SDCL Chapter 23A-35A; SDCL 23A-35A-25 is the pen-register and trap-and-trace 'Contents of application' section, not a civil-recovery section. The civil pathway is common-law invasion of privacy via Gantvoort v. Ranschau, 2022 S.D. 22, plus federal 18 U.S.C. 2520. Removed any active citation to SDCL 22-21-2, which was repealed by SL 1976, ch 158, section 21-3 and is not active law. Removed any reference to SDCL 23-3-45.1 (does not exist on sdlegislature.gov) and any inherited 'South Dakota body-worn camera statute' framing; access to body-cam and dash-cam footage is governed only by the general law-enforcement records exemption at SDCL 1-27-1.5(5). Dropped the unverified State v. Krebs, State v. Sanchez, and State v. McKnight references that prior copies of this article carried. Added Senate Bill 164 (2025), signed by Governor Larry Rhoden on March 25, 2025, prohibiting unlabeled political AI deepfakes within 90 days of a South Dakota election with intent to harm a candidate (Class 1 misdemeanor). Added Senate Bill 41 (2026), signed by Governor Larry Rhoden on March 17, 2026 and effective July 1, 2026, amending SDCL 22-21-4 to add a Class 6 felony tier for AI-generated NCII deepfakes of non-consenting adults. Reframed the Eighth Circuit record-the-police trio: Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020), clearly established the right of passive observation only; Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021), and Molina v. Book, No. 21-1830 (8th Cir. 2023, cert. denied Feb. 20, 2024), both expressly declined to extend Chestnut to a clearly-established right to record police. South Dakota plaintiffs alleging First Amendment retaliation for recording police face a qualified-immunity barrier that does not exist in the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, or 11th Circuits. Corrected the federal TCPA overlay: FCC 23-107 (one-to-one consent rule) was VACATED by the 11th Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (Jan. 24, 2025, mandate Apr. 30, 2025); FCC 24-24 (consent-revocation rules) was NOT vacated and REMAINS IN FORCE, with one subsection partially delayed to April 11, 2026. Reframed NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) as a housekeeping rescission of 29 prior General Counsel memoranda, NOT a Boeing reinstatement; Stericycle, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), remains binding Board precedent. Added NLRB GC 25-07 (June 26, 2025) narrowly scoped to surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se Section 8(a)(5) or 8(b)(3) violation; it does not reach general workplace audio. Updated federal overlay to include 47 C.F.R. 64.501 (REMOVED effective Nov. 20, 2017 by FCC 17-95) and the TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025; covered-platform 48-hour notice-and-removal duty effective May 19, 2026). Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with sdlegislature.gov, ujs.sd.gov, ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov, media.ca11.uscourts.gov, uscode.house.gov, fcc.gov, docs.fcc.gov, congress.gov, nlrb.gov, federalregister.gov, atg.sd.gov, puc.sd.gov, dps.sd.gov, and justice.gov primaries.

May 14, 2026

Refreshed for 2026. Corrected the SDCL 23A-35A-20 grading to a Class 5 felony (5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000 under SDCL 22-6-1(8)); the prior Class 6 framing was wrong. Anchored the consent framework on the foundational decision in State v. Braddock, 452 N.W.2d 785 (S.D. 1990), which holds that one-party consent removes a communication from the interception prohibition. Surfaced the load-bearing differentiator that South Dakota has NO state-law statutory civil cause of action under SDCL Chapter 23A-35A; SDCL 23A-35A-25 is the pen-register and trap-and-trace 'Contents of application' section, not a civil-recovery section. The civil pathway is common-law invasion of privacy via Gantvoort v. Ranschau, 2022 S.D. 22, plus federal 18 U.S.C. 2520. Removed any active citation to SDCL 22-21-2, which was repealed by SL 1976, ch 158, section 21-3 and is not active law. Removed any reference to SDCL 23-3-45.1 (does not exist on sdlegislature.gov) and any inherited 'South Dakota body-worn camera statute' framing; access to body-cam and dash-cam footage is governed only by the general law-enforcement records exemption at SDCL 1-27-1.5(5). Dropped the unverified State v. Krebs, State v. Sanchez, and State v. McKnight references that prior copies of this article carried. Added Senate Bill 164 (2025), signed by Governor Larry Rhoden on March 25, 2025, prohibiting unlabeled political AI deepfakes within 90 days of a South Dakota election with intent to harm a candidate (Class 1 misdemeanor). Added Senate Bill 41 (2026), signed by Governor Larry Rhoden on March 16, 2026 and effective July 1, 2026, amending SDCL 22-21-4 to add a Class 5 felony tier for AI-generated NCII deepfakes, with no age qualifier in the statute. Reframed the Eighth Circuit record-the-police trio: Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020), clearly established the right of passive observation only; Robbins v. City of Des Moines, 984 F.3d 673 (8th Cir. 2021), and Molina v. Book, No. 21-1830 (8th Cir. 2023, cert. denied Feb. 20, 2024), both expressly declined to extend Chestnut to a clearly-established right to record police. South Dakota plaintiffs alleging First Amendment retaliation for recording police face a qualified-immunity barrier that does not exist in the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, or 11th Circuits. Corrected the federal TCPA overlay: FCC 23-107 (one-to-one consent rule) was VACATED by the 11th Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (Jan. 24, 2025, mandate Apr. 30, 2025); FCC 24-24 (consent-revocation rules) was NOT vacated and REMAINS IN FORCE, with one subsection partially delayed to April 11, 2026. Reframed NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) as a housekeeping rescission of 29 prior General Counsel memoranda, NOT a Boeing reinstatement; Stericycle, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), remains binding Board precedent. Added NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) narrowly scoped to surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se Section 8(a)(5) or 8(b)(3) violation; it does not reach general workplace audio. Updated federal overlay to include 47 C.F.R. 64.501 (REMOVED effective Nov. 20, 2017 by FCC 17-95) and the TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025; covered-platform 48-hour notice-and-removal duty effective May 19, 2026). Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with sdlegislature.gov, ujs.sd.gov, ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov, media.ca11.uscourts.gov, uscode.house.gov, fcc.gov, docs.fcc.gov, congress.gov, nlrb.gov, federalregister.gov, atg.sd.gov, puc.sd.gov, dps.sd.gov, and justice.gov primaries.

March 23, 2026

Added wearable recording devices section and 2 new FAQs about AI voice recorders and smart glasses

The Law Behind This Article

This article rests on 14 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.

Code of Alabama 1975, Title 13A: Criminal Code.

§ 13A-11-35Divulging Illegally-Obtained Information.In forcecited in 4 of our articles

(a) A person commits the crime of divulging illegally-obtained information if he knowingly or recklessly uses or divulges information obtained through criminal eavesdropping or criminal surveillance. (b) Divulging illegally-obtained information is a Class B misdemeanor.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at alison.legislature.state.al.us

Also relied on in: Alabama Smart Glasses Recording Laws

United States Code Title 18

§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 397 of our articles

Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally 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 is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-08-12 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 2,045 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511) · United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297) · Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)

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

Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use

§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 111 of our articles

Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 860 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573) · Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41) · DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)

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

Also relied on in: Alabama Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know, Alaska Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026), Arkansas Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)

South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 1-27: PUBLIC RECORDS AND FILES

§ 1-27-1.5Records not open to inspection and copying.In forcecited in 3 of our articles

The following records are not subject to §§ 1-27-1, 1-27-1.1, 1-27-1.3, and § 1-27-1.23: (1) Personal information in records regarding any student, prospective student, or former student of any educational institution, if the records are maintained by and in the possession of a public entity, other than routine directory information specified and made public in accordance with 20 U.S.C. § 1232g (January 1, 2009); (2) Medical records, including all records of drug or alcohol testing, treatment, or counseling, other than records of births and deaths.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at sdlegislature.gov

Cited in 7 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2020

Leading cases: Mercer v. South Dakota Attorney General Office (South Dakota Supreme Court 2015, 864 N.W.2d 299) · In Re the Discipline of Tornow (South Dakota Supreme Court 2013, 2013 S.D. 61) · Argus Leader Media v. Hogstad (South Dakota Supreme Court 2017, 902 N.W.2d 778)

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

South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 15-2: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS GENERALLY

§ 15-2-14Action against sheriff, coroner, or constable--Action for statutory penalty or forfeiture--Action for personal injury.In forcecited in 6 of our articles

Except where, in special cases, a different limitation is prescribed by statute, the following civil actions other than for the recovery of real property can be commenced only within three years after the cause of action shall have accrued: (1) An action against a sheriff, coroner, or constable upon a liability incurred by the doing of an act in his official capacity and in virtue of his office, or by the omission of an official duty, including the nonpayment of money collected upon an execution. But this subdivision shall not apply to an action for an escape; (2) An action upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture where the action is given to the party aggrieved, or to such party and the state except where the statute imposing it prescribes a different limitation; (3) An action for personal injury.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at sdlegislature.gov

Cited in 60 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2024

Leading cases: Cunningham v. Yankton Clinic, P. A. (South Dakota Supreme Court 1978, 262 N.W.2d 508) · Pitt-Hart v. Sanford USD Medical Center (South Dakota Supreme Court 2016, 878 N.W.2d 406) · Stratmeyer v. Stratmeyer (South Dakota Supreme Court 1997, 567 N.W.2d 220)

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

South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 22-21: INVASIONS OF PRIVACY

§ 22-21-1Eavesdropping--Privacy--Misdemeanor.In forcecited in 14 of our articles

No person may, except as authorized by law: (1) Trespass on property with intent to subject anyone to eavesdropping or other surveillance in a private place; or (2) Install in any private place, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy there, any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events in such place, or uses any such unauthorized installation. A person who violates this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Subdivision (2) does not apply to law enforcement officers, or to those acting under the direction of a law enforcement officer, while engaged in the performance of the officer's lawful duties.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at sdlegislature.gov

Cited in 3 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2022

Leading cases: State v. Olson (South Dakota Supreme Court 1981, 305 N.W.2d 852) · State v. Reif (South Dakota Supreme Court 1992, 490 N.W.2d 511) · Gantvoort v. Ranschau (South Dakota Supreme Court 2022, 2022 S.D. 22)

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

Also relied on in: South Dakota Audio Recording Laws, South Dakota Dashcam Laws, South Dakota Medical Recording Laws

§ 22-21-3Window peeking on private property of another--Violation as misdemeanor.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

No person may enter the private property of another and peek in the door or window of any inhabited building or structure located thereon, without having lawful purpose with the owner or occupant thereof. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at sdlegislature.gov

Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2006

Leading cases: State v. Blair (South Dakota Supreme Court 2006, 721 N.W.2d 55)

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

§ 22-21-4Prohibited recording or manipulated image--Penalty.In forcecited in 8 of our articles

No individual, without the consent or knowledge of the individual depicted or recorded, and with the intent to self-gratify or alarm, annoy, embarrass, harass, invade the privacy of, threaten, or cause emotional, financial, physical, psychological, or reputational harm to that individual, may: (1) Intentionally use any device to photograph or visually record the individual without clothing or under or through the clothing, or with a third individual depicted in a sexual act, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, the individual; (2) Intentionally disclose, disseminate, distribute, sell, or use, by any means, any recording or photograph described in subdivision (1); or (3) Knowingly and intentionally create, disclose, disseminate, distribute, or sell, by any means, digitally fabricated material depicting the identifiable individual: (a) In a state of nudity, as defined in § 22-24A-2, such that an ordinary person viewing the material would conclude that the depiction is of the identifiable individual in such a state of nudity; or (b) Engaging in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, deviant sexual activity, or sexually explicit conduct such that an…

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at sdlegislature.gov

Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2006

Leading cases: State v. Blair (South Dakota Supreme Court 2006, 721 N.W.2d 55)

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

Also relied on in: South Dakota Voyeurism Laws

South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 22-6: AUTHORIZED PUNISHMENTS

§ 22-6-1Felony classes and penalties--Restitution--Habitual criminal sentences.In forcecited in 7 of our articles

Except as otherwise provided by law, felonies are divided into the following nine classes which are distinguished from each other by the following maximum penalties which are authorized upon conviction: (1) Class A felony: death or life imprisonment in a state correctional facility. A lesser sentence than death or life imprisonment may not be given for a Class A felony. In addition, a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed; (2) Class B felony: life imprisonment in a state correctional facility. A lesser sentence may not be given for a Class B felony. In addition, a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed; (3) Class C felony: life imprisonment in a state correctional facility. In addition, a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed; (4) Class 1 felony: fifty years imprisonment in a state correctional facility. In addition, a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed; (5) Class 2 felony: twenty-five years imprisonment in a state correctional facility. In addition, a fine of fifty thousand dollars may be imposed; (6) Class 3 felony: fifteen years imprisonment in a state correctional facility.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at sdlegislature.gov

Cited in 145 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: State v. Moeller (South Dakota Supreme Court 1996, 548 N.W.2d 465) · State v. Weiker (South Dakota Supreme Court 1983, 342 N.W.2d 7) · State v. Rice (South Dakota Supreme Court 2016, 2016 S.D. 18)

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

Also relied on in: South Dakota AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)

§ 22-6-2Misdemeanor classes and penalties--Restitution--Misdemeanor when no penalty imposed.In forcecited in 3 of our articles

Misdemeanors are divided into two classes which are distinguished from each other by the following maximum penalties which are authorized upon conviction: (1) Class 1 misdemeanor: one year imprisonment in a county jail or two thousand dollars fine, or both; (2) Class 2 misdemeanor: thirty days imprisonment in a county jail or five hundred dollars fine, or both. The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant who has been found guilty of a misdemeanor, shall order, in addition to the sentence that is imposed pursuant to the provisions of this section, that the defendant make restitution to any victim in accordance with the provisions of chapter 23A-28. Except in Titles 1 to 20, inclusive, 22, 25 to 28, inclusive, 32 to 36, inclusive, 40 to 42, inclusive, 47 to 54, inclusive, and 58 to 62, inclusive, if the performance of an act is prohibited by a statute, and no penalty for the violation of such statute is imposed by a statute, the doing of such act is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at sdlegislature.gov

Cited in 39 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023

Leading cases: State v. Feiok (South Dakota Supreme Court 1985, 364 N.W.2d 536) · State v. Auen (South Dakota Supreme Court 1984, 342 N.W.2d 236) · State v. Beck (South Dakota Supreme Court 2000, 619 N.W.2d 247)

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

South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 23A-35A: INTERCEPTION OF WIRE, ELECTRONIC, OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

§ 23A-35A-1Definition of terms.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

Terms used in this chapter mean: (1) "Aggrieved person," a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, electronic, or oral communication or a person against whom the interception was directed; (2) "Attorney general," the attorney general of the State of South Dakota; (3) "Chapter 119 of the United States Code," Chapter 119 of Part I of Title 18, United States Code, being Public Law 90-351, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968; (4) "Communications common carrier," the meaning given to the term, common carrier, by section 153 of Title 47 of the United States Code; (5) "Contents," with respect to any wire, electronic, or oral communication, any information concerning the identity of the parties to the communication or the existence, substance, purport, or meaning of that communication; (6) "Eavesdropping device," any electronic, mechanical, or other apparatus which is intentionally used to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication other than: (a) Any telephone, telegraph instrument, or electronic communication device, equipment, or facility, or any component thereof, (i) furnished to the subscriber or user by a communications common carrier in…

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at sdlegislature.gov

Cited in 4 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2002

Leading cases: State v. Owens (South Dakota Supreme Court 2002, 643 N.W.2d 735) · State v. Woods (South Dakota Supreme Court 1985, 361 N.W.2d 620) · State v. Iverson (South Dakota Supreme Court 1985, 364 N.W.2d 518)

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

§ 23A-35A-20Overhearing or recording communications, conversations, or jury deliberations by means of eavesdropping device as felony.In forcecited in 17 of our articles

Except as provided in § 23A-35A-21, a person is guilty of a Class 5 felony who is not: (1) A sender or receiver of a communication who intentionally and by means of an eavesdropping device overhears or records a communication, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures, or permits another to overhear or record, without the consent of either a sender or receiver of the communication; (2) A person present during a conversation or discussion who intentionally and by means of an eavesdropping device overhears or records the conversation or discussion, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures, or permits another to overhear or record, without the consent of a party to the conversation or discussion; or (3) A member of a jury who intentionally records or listens to by means of an eavesdropping device the deliberations of the jury or aids, authorizes, employs, procures, or permits another to record or listen.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at sdlegislature.gov

Cited in 3 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2022

Leading cases: State v. Woods (South Dakota Supreme Court 1985, 361 N.W.2d 620) · State v. Braddock (South Dakota Supreme Court 1990, 452 N.W.2d 785) · Gantvoort v. Ranschau (South Dakota Supreme Court 2022, 2022 S.D. 22)

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

Also relied on in: South Dakota Phone Call Recording Laws, South Dakota Laws on Recording Police, South Dakota Security Camera Laws

§ 23A-35A-21Exemptions from chapter.In force

The following is exempt from the provisions of this chapter: (1) Wiretapping and eavesdropping pursuant to an ex parte order granted pursuant to § 23A-35A-6; (2) The normal use of services, equipment, and facilities provided by a common carrier pursuant to tariffs on file with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of South Dakota or the federal communications commission; (3) The normal functions of any operator of a switchboard; (4) Any officer, agent, or employee of a communications common carrier engaged in the business of providing service, equipment, and facilities for communication who performs acts otherwise prohibited by this chapter in providing such communication services, equipment, and facilities or in constructing, maintaining, repairing, operating, or using same, including the obtaining of billing and accounting information, the protecting of the communication services, equipment, and facilities from illegal use in violation of tariffs on file with the corporation commission of this state or the federal communications commission and the protecting of the common carrier from the commission of fraud against it; (5) The providing of requested information or…

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at sdlegislature.gov

South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 23A-42: LIMITATION OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS

§ 23A-42-2Seven-year limitation on other prosecutions.In force

In all other prosecutions for a public offense and all proceedings of a quasi-criminal or penal nature, including the forfeiture of existing rights, the proceedings shall be commenced within seven years after the commission of the offense or crime which is the basis of the prosecution or proceedings, except as provided in § 23A-42-3.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at sdlegislature.gov

Cited in 2 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2024

Leading cases: State v. Lodermeier (South Dakota Supreme Court 1992, 481 N.W.2d 614) · Carter v. United States (District Court, D. South Dakota 2024)

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

Explore the law

This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 1-25: MEETINGS OF PUBLIC AGENCIES § 1-25-1 (Official meetings open to public--Exceptions--Notice of quorum--Public comment--Penalty.)

Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.

Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →

South Dakota recording law at a glance

Recording in-person conversations in South Dakota

Recording phone calls in South Dakota

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Penalties for illegal recording in South Dakota

Recording the police in South Dakota

Special topics in South Dakota

Workplace recording and NLRB Stericycle

Body-worn cameras and open records

AI deepfakes and NCII

Federal overlay: ECPA, FCC, and TCPA

Recent legal developments

South Dakota recording laws in depth

More South Dakota laws

More South Dakota Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is South Dakota a one-party or two-party consent state?

Is illegal recording a felony in South Dakota?

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

Can I sue someone for recording me illegally in South Dakota?

Can I publish or share a recording I legally made in South Dakota?

Is a Ring doorbell or home security camera legal in South Dakota?

Can I record police in South Dakota?

Can my employer ban me from recording in the workplace?

Does South Dakota have a deepfake law?

Updates

The Law Behind This Article

Code of Alabama 1975, Title 13A: Criminal Code.

United States Code Title 18

South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 1-27: PUBLIC RECORDS AND FILES

South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 15-2: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS GENERALLY

South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 22-21: INVASIONS OF PRIVACY

South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 22-6: AUTHORIZED PUNISHMENTS

South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 23A-35A: INTERCEPTION OF WIRE, ELECTRONIC, OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 23A-42: LIMITATION OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS

Explore the law

Sources and References