Call Recording Laws in Alaska

Plain-English summary

Alaska’s eavesdropping statute, Alaska Stat. § 42.20.310, prohibits the use of an “eavesdropping device” to overhear or record a conversation without the consent of a party. The Alaska Supreme Court in State v. Glass, 583 P.2d 872 (Alaska 1978), construed the statute and the Alaska Constitution’s privacy provision to require consent of at least one party where the recording is by a participant or with a participant’s permission.

The practical effect is one-party consent for participant recording, with a constitutional gloss that gives Alaska a stronger privacy posture than its statute alone suggests. Non-participant interception remains squarely prohibited.

Case law of note

No appellate decision in Alaska has materially reshaped the participant-recording rule in recent decades. Lower-court decisions exist but do not change the analytical framework set by the statute and by general federal precedent under § 2511.

Edge cases and special rules

In-person vs. phone. Generally same rule; statute focuses on intercepting parties
Voicemail. Leaving a message creates the recording at the recipient’s direction; reviewing one’s own voicemail is not interception.
Vicarious consent. Several federal courts have recognized a parental-consent doctrine permitting a parent to consent on behalf of a minor child (Pollock v. Pollock, 154 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1998)). State law varies; no controlling Alaska appellate decision on the question.
Law enforcement. Court-authorized intercepts are governed by a separate framework and are outside the scope of this page.
Cross-border calls. Where any participant is in an all-party state, treat the stricter rule as the safer default. See cross-border calls.

Penalties and remedies

Criminal: Class A misdemeanor under § 42.20.330.

Civil: Civil action under § 42.20.330; injunctive relief and damages.

Evidence: a recording made in violation of the Alaska statute is generally inadmissible in Alaska proceedings. Federal § 2515 separately bars use of unlawfully intercepted communications in federal proceedings.

Practical guidance

If you are recording an ordinary phone call: you may record without notifying the other party, but verbal consent is the safer practice if the recording may be used in a proceeding.
Suggested opening: See our consent script templates for jurisdiction-specific language.
If the other party objects: stop recording. Continued recording over an objection is a separate factual question that no consent statute helps you with.
What to keep: the date and time of the call, the parties’ phone numbers, a description of the consent given (express verbal, continued participation after notice, etc.), and the audio file itself.