West Virginia Recording Laws (2026): § 62-1D-3 Explained
West Virginia is a one-party consent state under W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3. If you participate in the conversation, or any other party gives you permission, you may lawfully record it unless the recording is made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. See the Quick Answer for the operative rule, then read on for penalties, workplace overlays, the Fourth Circuit's Sharpe v. Winterville holding on livestreaming police, and the 2025 AI-deepfake amendments under § 61-8-28a.
Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses West Virginia state recording law under W. Va. Code Chapters 62-1D, 61-8, 21-3, 29B, and 55-2, together with the controlling Fourth Circuit and federal overlay (ECPA, FCC TCPA, NLRB, TAKE IT DOWN Act). It does not cover Maryland's or Pennsylvania's all-party-consent regimes, except in the cross-state context. For those, see our Maryland recording laws and Pennsylvania recording laws pages. Information last verified on May 13, 2026.
Quick Answer: Is West Virginia a One-Party Consent State?
Yes. Under W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3(e), a person who is a party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication, or who has the prior consent of a party, may lawfully record the communication unless the recording is made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of West Virginia. The statutory text reads:
"It is lawful under this article for a person to intercept a wire, oral or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or the Constitution or laws of this state." Source: W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3(e)
That language tracks the federal floor at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) almost verbatim. The criminal-or-tortious-purpose proviso is doing real work: it means the same recording can be lawful when made to document harassment for an HR complaint and unlawful when made to extort the other party, because intent flips the analysis.
| Key Point | Answer |
|---|---|
| Consent type | One-party |
| Can you record your own conversations? | Yes, subject to the criminal-or-tortious-purpose proviso |
| Must you inform the other party? | No |
| Operative statute | W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3 |
| Criminal penalty | Felony, up to 5 years and a $10,000 fine |
| Civil damages | Actual damages or $100 per day, plus punitive damages and attorney fees |
| Controlling state-court case | State v. Mullens, 221 W. Va. 70 (2007) |
| Controlling federal record-the-police case | Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep't, 59 F.4th 674 (4th Cir. 2023) |
The Statute: W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3 Explained
West Virginia's wiretap statute is the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, codified at W. Va. Code Chapter 62, Article 1D. The statute has been on the books since the 1980s and tracks the federal Wiretap Act structurally. The key provisions for everyday recording questions are §§ 62-1D-3 (the prohibition and one-party consent exception), 62-1D-6 (procedure for one-party-consent interceptions in law-enforcement investigations), 62-1D-11 (procedure for judicially authorized interceptions), and 62-1D-12 (civil cause of action and defenses).
Section 62-1D-3(b) is the criminal prohibition. It reaches any person who "intentionally intercepts, attempts to intercept or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept" a wire, oral, or electronic communication, plus any person who discloses or uses the contents of an unlawfully intercepted communication knowing it was unlawfully obtained. Section 62-1D-3(e) is the one-party-consent exception that pulls participants and consenting bystanders out of the prohibition, subject to the criminal-or-tortious-purpose proviso.
The statute covers three communication categories. Wire communications include traditional landline calls and cell phone calls carried in part by wire. Oral communications are face-to-face conversations uttered with a reasonable expectation that they will not be intercepted. Electronic communications include text messages, email, VoIP and video calls, and other digital transmissions. Visual-only surveillance without an audio component is not directly governed by § 62-1D-3; it falls instead under the voyeurism statute at § 61-8-28 and any property-based tort or trespass theory.
What State v. Mullens Adds for Private Homes
The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals held in State v. Mullens, 221 W. Va. 70, 650 S.E.2d 169 (2007), that the state constitution adds a layer of protection on top of the statutory one-party-consent rule when the government is involved. The court framed the holding tightly:
"Article III, § 6 of the West Virginia Constitution prohibits the police from sending an informant into the home of another person under the auspices of the one-party consent to electronic surveillance provisions of W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3(b)(2) where the police have not obtained prior judicial authorization pursuant to W. Va. Code § 62-1D-11." Source: State v. Mullens, 221 W. Va. at Syl. Pt. 6
Two textual notes matter. First, Mullens quotes "§ 62-1D-3(b)(2)" verbatim because that was the subsection lettering in the 2007 statutory architecture. The current statute places the one-party-consent exemption at § 62-1D-3(e). When citing the current code, use (e); when quoting Mullens directly, preserve (b)(2). Second, Mullens is a state-action case. It does not constrain private parties who record their own conversations. A private citizen recording a phone call from their home, or a guest recording a conversation at someone else's kitchen table, is still governed solely by § 62-1D-3(e).
Mullens also has an evidentiary holding worth flagging. The court held that "proof of consent for purposes of an electronic intercept under W. Va. Code §§ 62-1D-3 and 62-1D-6 need not be proven solely by the consenting individual's testimony; it can be proven through other evidence, such as the testimony of the person to whom the consent was given." That language closes the loop on a recurring trial-court question: the prosecution can establish one-party consent without putting the consenting informant on the stand.
Definitions and Devices
Section 62-1D-2 supplies the definitional vocabulary. "Intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of a communication through the use of an electronic, mechanical, or other device. The device category is broad: a smartphone running a recording app qualifies, a body-worn microphone qualifies, a hidden audio recorder taped under a table qualifies. "Contents" includes any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of the communication. The breadth of the definition is why incidental audio captured by a security camera or a doorbell with two-way audio can still implicate § 62-1D-3 if no party to the captured conversation consented.
Penalties for Illegal Recording: Felony Track and Civil Remedy
A violation of W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3 is a felony. The penalty under § 62-1D-3(b) is imprisonment in the penitentiary for not more than five years, a fine of not more than $10,000, or both:
"Except as otherwise specifically provided in this article, any person who intentionally intercepts, attempts to intercept or procures any other person to intercept or attempt to intercept, any wire, oral or electronic communication ... shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary for not more than five years or fined not more than $10,000 or both fined and imprisoned." Source: W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3(b)
West Virginia's wiretap penalty does not use a class-letter felony grading scheme. It is a felony capped at five years and $10,000. Each separate act of unlawful interception, disclosure, or use is a separate offense, so a defendant who intercepts a conversation, then discloses the recording to a third party, then uses the disclosed contents in a civil dispute, can face three separate counts even on a single underlying interception.
Statute of limitations. West Virginia has no general statute of limitations for felony prosecutions. W. Va. Code § 61-11-9 expressly limits only perjury (three years) and misdemeanor prosecutions (one year), leaving felony offenses open-ended. A § 62-1D-3 felony interception charge therefore has no time limit for prosecution under West Virginia law, although due-process and evidence-preservation problems will eventually limit the practical reach.
Civil Damages Under § 62-1D-12
W. Va. Code § 62-1D-12 creates a parallel civil cause of action. The statutory text floors damages at $100 per day of violation:
"Any person whose wire, oral or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, used or whose identity is disclosed in violation of this article shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, uses or so discloses such information ... and shall be entitled to recover from any such person: (1) Actual damages, but not less than $100 for each day of violation; (2) Punitive damages, if found to be proper; and (3) Reasonable attorney fees and reasonable costs of litigation incurred." Source: W. Va. Code § 62-1D-12
Unlike Rhode Island's analogous statute, West Virginia's § 62-1D-12 contains no $1,000 minimum floor. The only floor is $100 per day of violation, which means a single-day unlawful recording can be capped at $100 actual damages plus whatever punitive damages and attorney fees a court awards. A long-running surveillance, by contrast, accumulates the $100-per-day floor mechanically, which is the design of the statute.
The statute also contains a complete affirmative defense: "A good faith reliance on a court order or legislative authorization shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this article or any other law." That language protects telecom providers and others who execute on facially valid wiretap orders, and it tracks the federal defense at 18 U.S.C. § 2520(d).
Likely limitations period. The most likely civil limitations period for a § 62-1D-12 claim is the two-year personal-injury period in W. Va. Code § 55-2-12, which reaches actions "for damages for personal injuries." No West Virginia appellate court has squarely decided which subsection of § 55-2 governs a § 62-1D-12 claim, so a plaintiff should plead an alternative theory if the limitations issue is contested.
Phone Calls and Multi-State Recording
West Virginia residents can record phone calls they participate in without notifying the other party. Section 62-1D-3(e) makes no distinction between a face-to-face conversation and a call carried over wire, cellular, or VoIP technology. A West Virginia subscriber who is on the call is a "party to the communication" within the meaning of the statute.
Cross-state calls are where this gets harder. West Virginia borders three states with stricter regimes for telephone recording:
| State | Consent Rule | Cross-Border Implication |
|---|---|---|
| West Virginia | One-party | Origin call: one-party consent satisfies § 62-1D-3 |
| Maryland | Two-party (all-party) | A WV-to-MD call typically requires all-party consent |
| Pennsylvania | Two-party (all-party) | A WV-to-PA call typically requires all-party consent |
| Virginia | One-party | Mirror to WV; one-party consent governs |
| Ohio | One-party | Mirror to WV; one-party consent governs |
| Kentucky | One-party | Mirror to WV; one-party consent governs |
The practitioner norm for cross-state recording is to apply the stricter state's law as a conflict-of-laws default. That is not a literal textual command of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), which sets a one-party-consent federal floor, but it is how courts and counsel typically resolve the conflict in civil cases. The reasoning is straightforward: the call participant in the stricter-law state expected the stricter-law protection, and applying the more protective rule avoids stripping that expectation away by happenstance of geography.
Practical rule. If you are in West Virginia placing or receiving a call to or from Maryland or Pennsylvania, treat the call as a two-party-consent call. Either provide a recording disclosure at the start ("This call is being recorded for [purpose]") or obtain affirmative consent before recording. Inbound calls to a Maryland or Pennsylvania number should be assumed all-party until you confirm otherwise.
Business Call Recording
Businesses operating from West Virginia can record their own calls under § 62-1D-3(e) because the business participant satisfies one-party consent. Most call centers and customer-service operations still provide a recording disclosure, both as a customer-experience choice and to manage exposure when calls are placed to or received from all-party-consent states. The legacy 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 "beep tone" rule for common carriers was removed by the FCC effective November 20, 2017 and is no longer a live federal recording requirement.
Workplace Recording: § 21-3-20, Stericycle, and NLRB GC 25-07
West Virginia private-sector workplace recording sits on top of three overlapping layers: the state's general one-party-consent rule, a narrow workplace-surveillance prohibition for sensitive areas, and the NLRB's federal floor on no-recording handbook policies.
W. Va. Code § 21-3-20: Sensitive-Area Prohibition
W. Va. Code § 21-3-20 prohibits both public and private employers from using electronic surveillance in specific sensitive areas: rest rooms, shower rooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, and employee lounges. The restriction is structural; it operates as a non-derogable floor under the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act and applies even when the employer is a participant in any captured conversation. An employer cannot bootstrap one-party consent by sitting in the lounge with a recording device.
Penalties under § 21-3-20 escalate by offense:
| Offense | Penalty |
|---|---|
| First offense | $500 |
| Second offense | $1,000 |
| Third or subsequent offense | $2,000 |
The penalty structure is per-violation civil money penalty, separate from any § 62-1D-3 criminal exposure for intercepting communications captured in those areas. The two regimes stack: an employer who places an audio recorder in an employee lounge can face both a § 21-3-20 civil penalty and a § 62-1D-3 felony charge if any captured conversation was protected.
Stericycle and the NLRB Work-Rules Standard
Under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), a facially challenged employer work rule is presumptively unlawful under Section 8(a)(1) if it would tend to chill an employee's exercise of Section 7 rights, including concerted activity such as documenting wages, working conditions, harassment, or safety violations. The employer can rebut the presumption only by showing a legitimate and substantial business interest that could not be advanced with a more narrowly tailored rule.
A blanket "no recording on company property" policy is the textbook target of Stericycle. The Board reads such rules from the perspective of an economically dependent employee, and a blanket ban almost always sweeps in protected Section 7 conduct. Narrowly tailored alternatives that can survive Stericycle include rules prohibiting recording in client-confidential areas, rules restricting recording of trade-secret meetings, or rules requiring the recorder to give notice in fixed-location workspaces with privacy expectations.
NLRB GC 25-05 is a housekeeping rescission only. General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-05 (February 14, 2025) rescinded a slate of prior General Counsel prosecutorial guidance memoranda for case-management reasons. It did not reinstate Boeing. It did not overrule Stericycle. A General Counsel memorandum cannot overrule Board decisional law in any event. Stericycle remains the controlling Board standard for facially challenged work rules.
NLRB GC 25-07 narrowly targets bargaining sessions. GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) directs Regions to allege a Section 8(a)(5) or 8(b)(3) duty-to-bargain violation whenever any party to collective-bargaining negotiations secretly records a bargaining session. The guidance is narrow: it applies only to formal collective-bargaining sessions, not to general workplace conversations.
Can You Record Your Employer?
Yes. As a one-party-consent state, West Virginia allows you to record conversations you participate in at work without notifying your employer, subject to the criminal-or-tortious-purpose proviso. Common lawful uses include documenting harassment, recording performance reviews, preserving verbal instructions, and protecting yourself in workplace disputes. Internal employer policies can still discipline or terminate an employee for recording, but Section 7 of the NLRA and Stericycle may limit how far an employer can push that policy.
State-Government IT Policies
The West Virginia Office of Technology publishes information-security and acceptable-use policies for state-issued equipment under W. Va. Code § 5A-6-4a and Governor's Executive Orders 6-06 and 3-17. Those policies authorize administrative monitoring of state-issued devices for legitimate IT-security purposes. They do not displace the criminal prohibition of § 62-1D-3 against intercepting employee communications without one-party consent, and they apply only to state-employer-issued equipment.
Recording the Police: Sharpe v. Winterville (4th Cir. 2023)
West Virginia sits in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The controlling Fourth Circuit case on the First Amendment right to record police is Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department, 59 F.4th 674 (4th Cir. 2023), decided February 7, 2023, on appeal from the Eastern District of North Carolina (No. 21-1827). The opinion was authored by Judge Richardson, with Judge Niemeyer concurring separately.
The holding is direct:
"Livestreaming a police traffic stop is speech protected by the First Amendment." Source: Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep't, 59 F.4th at 681
The case arose from an October 2018 traffic stop in Winterville, North Carolina. The plaintiff was a passenger in his brother's car. He pulled out his phone and began livestreaming the stop on Facebook Live. An officer told him to stop, took the phone, and the Town of Winterville had a policy prohibiting passengers from livestreaming traffic stops. The plaintiff sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed qualified immunity for the individual officer because the right to livestream a traffic stop was not "clearly established" in October 2018. But the court vacated dismissal of the Monell claim against the Town and remanded for further proceedings, holding that a municipal policy categorically barring livestreaming traffic stops is content-neutral but triggers heightened scrutiny that the Town had not satisfied on the record. The cert disposition of Sharpe is not confirmed in our research dossier and is not asserted here; the case stands as controlling Fourth Circuit precedent regardless.
For a West Virginia driver, passenger, or bystander, Sharpe means:
- The First Amendment protects livestreaming a traffic stop in West Virginia.
- A West Virginia municipal policy that flatly bars recording or livestreaming police encounters in public is constitutionally suspect under Sharpe and faces heightened scrutiny.
- Federal trial courts in the Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia must apply Sharpe to Section 1983 First Amendment recording claims.
- The right is not absolute. You cannot physically obstruct the officer, ignore lawful time-place-manner orders to step back, or trespass to get a better recording angle.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press maintains a West Virginia recording guide, but its last verified update is December 2021 and it predates Sharpe. Treat the RCFP page as a general press-freedom reference and rely on Sharpe itself for the current state of Fourth Circuit law.
Body-Worn Cameras and FOIA Access
West Virginia has no statewide statutory mandate for law-enforcement body-worn cameras. Deployment is local-agency-specific. Some West Virginia counties and municipalities have adopted body-cam programs by ordinance or agency policy; others have not.
Do not cite W. Va. Code § 15-2-1a as a body-cam authority. That section was repealed by Acts of 1990, Reg. Sess., Ch. 157, and no longer exists. Any third-party source treating § 15-2-1a as a live recording requirement is wrong as a matter of West Virginia code.
Public access to existing body-cam footage flows from the general state Freedom of Information Act, W. Va. Code Chapter 29B, subject to standard exemptions including the personal-information exemption under § 29B-1-4 and any ongoing-investigation withholding. There is no body-cam-specific access statute. A FOIA request for body-cam footage in West Virginia therefore lives or dies on the general exemptions, not on a specialized regime.
Hidden Cameras and Voyeurism: § 61-8-28 and § 61-3-50
West Virginia's visual-side recording law sits in the criminal code, separate from the wiretap statute. The two main provisions are the voyeurism prohibition at W. Va. Code § 61-8-28 and the breaking-and-entering protections in § 61-3 for cameras placed by trespass.
§ 61-8-28: Criminal Invasion of Privacy
Section 61-8-28(a) makes it unlawful "for a person to knowingly visually portray another person without that other person's knowledge, while that other person is fully or partially nude and is in a place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy." The statute also reaches downstream conduct: "It is also unlawful to display or distribute visual images of another person with knowledge that said visual images were obtained in violation of the above provision."
Penalties under § 61-8-28 escalate by offense:
| Offense | Classification | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| First offense | Misdemeanor | Up to one year jail, up to $5,000 fine, or both |
| Subsequent offense | Felony | One to five years prison, up to $10,000 fine, or both |
The statute is targeted at hidden-camera and surreptitious-video scenarios. The recording is criminalized at the moment of capture if the target is nude or partially nude in a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy location; the disclosure prong reaches anyone who later displays or distributes images they know to have been unlawfully captured.
How Voyeurism Overlaps with § 62-1D-3
A hidden camera that captures audio along with video can implicate both statutes simultaneously. Section 62-1D-3 covers the audio interception; § 61-8-28 covers the visual privacy invasion. A defendant facing both charges can be prosecuted on both because the offenses target different conduct elements, although double-jeopardy and merger doctrine can come into play at sentencing.
Deepfakes and AI-Generated Intimate Images: § 61-8-28a and 2025 SB 198
West Virginia's nonconsensual intimate image (NCII) statute is W. Va. Code § 61-8-28a. As of July 9, 2025, the statute reaches both authentic intimate images and AI-generated "fabricated intimate images" of an identifiable person.
The Operative Text
Section 61-8-28a(b) reads:
"A person commits an offense under this section when he or she knowingly and intentionally discloses, causes to be disclosed or threatens to disclose, with the intent to harass, intimidate, threaten, humiliate, embarrass, or coerce, a fabricated intimate image of another or an image of another which shows the intimate parts of the depicted person or shows the depicted person engaged in sexually explicit conduct which was captured under circumstances where the person depicted had a reasonable expectation that the image would not be publicly disclosed."
The definition of "fabricated intimate image" is the AI hook:
"'Fabricated intimate image' means an image of an identifiable depicted individual that was created by the use of artificial intelligence or other computer technology capable of processing and interpreting specific data inputs and depicts computer-generated intimate parts or the intimate parts of another human being as the intimate parts of the depicted individual."
That language captures both AI-generated nude imagery and so-called "face-swap" content where the depicted individual's likeness is grafted onto another person's intimate imagery. The statute reaches the disclosure of such imagery (and threats to disclose), not the act of generating it.
Penalty Tiers Under § 61-8-28a
| Offense | Classification | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| First offense | Misdemeanor | Up to one year jail, fine of $1,000 to $5,000 |
| Subsequent offense | Felony | Up to three years state correctional facility, fine of $2,500 to $10,000 |
Note that § 61-8-28a uses a different penalty structure than the § 61-8-28 voyeurism statute. The first-offense fine range for NCII is $1,000 to $5,000 (with a minimum floor), while voyeurism's first-offense fine is capped at $5,000 with no statutory floor. Treat the two penalty tables as distinct; they are not interchangeable.
Legislative Pedigree: 2025 SB 198 and the Bills That Died
The only enacted West Virginia deepfake amendment relevant to recording law is 2025 Regular Session SB 198. SB 198 passed the Senate on March 3, 2025 (Roll No. 51), passed the House on April 8, 2025 (Roll No. 414), received Senate concurrence on April 10, 2025 (Roll No. 449), and was signed by the Governor on April 24, 2025. It took effect July 9, 2025. SB 198 expanded § 61-8-28a to reach AI-generated fabricated intimate images and made parallel amendments to §§ 61-8C-1, 61-8C-2, 61-8C-3, 61-8C-3a, and 61-8C-3b (child-pornography statutes), and added § 61-8C-3c.
West Virginia has no enacted political-deepfake statute. The following bills all died in committee or on the floor:
| Bill | Subject | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 2024 HB 4963 | Political-deepfake election bill | Passed House Feb. 27, 2024; died in Senate Judiciary Feb. 28, 2024 |
| 2024 HB 5516 | Deepfake NCII bill | Passed House Feb. 27, 2024; died in Senate Judiciary Feb. 28, 2024 |
| 2024 SB 720 | "Stop Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Deep Fake Media Act" | Introduced Feb. 8, 2024; died in Senate Judiciary; effectively superseded by 2025 SB 198 |
| 2025 SB 484 | Synthetic-media and AI election-disclosure | Laid over on first reading; referred to Senate Rules Mar. 4, 2025; not enacted |
Although the section history footer for § 61-8-28 lists HB 5516, the section itself was not amended by that bill. Treat § 61-8-28 as unchanged by the 2024 HB 5516 attempt.
TAKE IT DOWN Act Compliance for WV-Based Platforms
Federal overlay matters here. The TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119 (2025), signed May 19, 2025, criminalizes the knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI-generated "digital forgeries." Its criminal provisions took effect immediately. Covered platforms must establish a notice-and-removal process with a 48-hour removal window by May 19, 2026. That deadline is six days from the verification date of this article. West Virginia-based platforms hosting user-generated content should treat that May 19, 2026 deadline as a hard compliance milestone alongside § 61-8-28a state-law exposure.
Federal Overlay: ECPA, FCC, NLRB, TAKE IT DOWN Act
Federal law overlays West Virginia recording rules in several places. The most important pieces for recording-law practitioners in 2026:
ECPA: One-Party Consent Floor
18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) sets a one-party-consent federal floor for private-party interception:
"It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State."
The federal floor is one-party; states can be stricter but not more permissive. West Virginia's § 62-1D-3 sits at the floor. The "stricter state's law" cross-state recording rule is a practitioner and conflict-of-laws norm, not a literal command of § 2511(2)(d).
FCC: TCPA, AI Voices, and the Vacated One-to-One Rule
The Federal Communications Commission's recent activity in this space matters for any West Virginia caller or business making outbound calls.
- FCC 24-17 (AI voices are "artificial or prerecorded" under TCPA). The Commission's Declaratory Ruling 24-17, adopted February 2, 2024 and released February 8, 2024, confirms that AI-generated voices used in outbound robocalls qualify as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)-(B) and therefore require prior express consent.
- FCC 24-24 one-to-one consent rule vacated. Part III.D of FCC Order 24-24 (the "one-to-one consent" provision) was vacated by Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 11th Cir. No. 24-10277, decided January 24, 2025 with the mandate issuing April 30, 2025. The consent-revocation portions of FCC 24-24 took effect April 11, 2025 and remain in force.
- 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 removed. The legacy carrier "beep tone" recording rule was removed effective November 20, 2017 by the FCC's "Modernizing Common Carrier Rules" Report and Order. Do not cite § 64.501 as a live federal recording requirement.
NLRB: Stericycle, GC 25-05, GC 25-07
Recapped above in the workplace section. The short version: Stericycle (2023) is the binding Board standard. GC 25-05 is a housekeeping rescission only. GC 25-07 narrowly bars surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions.
DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302
Federal agents and cooperating witnesses can record their own face-to-face oral conversations with one-party consent under the DOJ's Justice Manual § 9-7.302. Advance written DOJ authorization is required for sensitive subjects, including Members of Congress, federal judges, and governors. The manual is internal DOJ policy, not statute, but federal investigators in West Virginia routinely operate under it.
West Virginia PSC
The West Virginia Public Service Commission regulates telecommunications carriers under Chapter 24. Its Rules of Practice and Procedure (150 CSR Series) contain no PSC-specific rule mandating or restricting call recording by regulated telecom carriers. Carrier recording obligations are governed by ECPA, FCC TCPA rules, and the WV Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act, not by PSC tariff.
Admissibility of Recordings in WV Court
A recording made lawfully under W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3 (with one party's consent and without criminal or tortious purpose) is generally admissible in West Virginia civil and criminal proceedings, subject to ordinary evidentiary rules.
Courts look at:
- Authentication under W. Va. R. Evid. 901. The proponent must establish that the recording is what it purports to be. Testimony from the recorder, voice identification, distinctive characteristics on the recording, or chain-of-custody evidence will all suffice.
- Relevance under W. Va. R. Evid. 401-403. The recording must tend to make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and its probative value must not be substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
- Hearsay under W. Va. R. Evid. 801-807. Recorded statements are often admissible under the party-opponent admission rule (Rule 801(d)(2)) when offered against the speaker, but third-party statements on the recording may face hearsay objections.
- Confrontation in criminal cases. Recordings of testimonial out-of-court statements implicate the Confrontation Clause under Crawford v. Washington and its progeny.
A recording made in violation of § 62-1D-3 is generally inadmissible in West Virginia criminal proceedings and exposes the recorder to felony liability and § 62-1D-12 civil exposure. Civil courts retain more discretion to consider unlawfully obtained recordings, but the same recording remains evidence of an underlying tort under § 62-1D-12 against the recorder, which usually offsets any tactical advantage.
The Mullens evidentiary holding remains relevant: when one-party consent is contested at trial, the prosecution or proponent can establish consent through the testimony of the person to whom the consent was given, not solely through the consenting party's direct testimony.
No published West Virginia Attorney General opinion construing the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act was located through the AG's published opinions index. West Virginia courts have construed the statute directly, and State v. Mullens remains the controlling state-court authority.
West Virginia Recording Laws by Topic
Each of the 12 pages below covers a specific West Virginia recording-law context in greater depth than this hub can. Use them to drill into the rule that applies to your situation.
- West Virginia Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Guide
- [West Virginia Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting, and Evidence Rules](/united-states-recording-laws/one-party-consent-states/west-virginia-recording-laws/dashcam/)
- West Virginia Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Rights and Rules
- West Virginia Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and HIPAA Guide
- West Virginia Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules and Consent Guide
- [West Virginia Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits](/united-states-recording-laws/one-party-consent-states/west-virginia-recording-laws/police/)
- West Virginia Laws on Recording in Public: What You Can and Cannot Do
- West Virginia School Recording Laws: Security, Parents, and Students
- West Virginia Security Camera Laws: Rules for Homes and Businesses
- West Virginia Video Recording Laws: Privacy Rules and Consent
- West Virginia Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras and Privacy Violations
- West Virginia Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights
More Virginia Laws
- Virginia Recording Laws
- Virginia Recording Laws
- Virginia Recording Laws
- Virginia Recording Laws
- Virginia Whistleblower Laws
- [Virginia Data Privacy Laws](/us-laws/data-privacy-laws/west-virginia-data-privacy-laws/biometric-privacy)
- Virginia Data Privacy Laws
- Virginia Recording Laws
Disclaimer
This article presents general legal information about recording-consent law in West Virginia under W. Va. Code Chapters 62-1D, 61-8, 21-3, 29B, and 55-2, together with the controlling Fourth Circuit and federal overlay current through May 13, 2026. It is not legal advice. Your situation may turn on facts that the law treats differently. Consult a lawyer licensed in West Virginia for advice on a specific recording, surveillance, or workplace-privacy question.