Call Recording Laws in Connecticut

Plain-English summary

Connecticut is a mixed-consent state. The criminal eavesdropping statute, § 53a-187, requires only that one party consent — making criminal participant recording lawful. But § 52-570d creates a separate civil cause of action against any person who records a telephonic communication without the consent of all parties, subject to enumerated exceptions.

The civil statute is what makes Connecticut effectively all-party for telephone calls: a participant who records without obtaining the other party’s consent commits no crime but exposes themselves to a private suit with statutory damages. In-person recording remains one-party. The civil statute has narrow exceptions for law enforcement, for parties acting under court order, and for recordings made to obtain evidence of crime where notice is given (§ 52-570d(b)).

Case law of note

No appellate decision in Connecticut 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. One-party consent for in-person; all-party for telephonic under § 52-570d
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 Connecticut 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 D felony under § 53a-187 for non-participant interception; participant recording generally not criminal.

Civil: Yes — § 52-570d creates a civil cause of action for unauthorized recording of telephonic communications.

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

Practical guidance

If you are recording an ordinary phone call: obtain audible consent from every party at the start of the call.
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.