One-Party vs. All-Party Quick Reference
Single-page tabular summary of every US state’s consent classification, with the controlling statute and a one-line caveat where the analysis is unsettled. For the full discussion, see the main explainer.
One-party-consent
A participant in the conversation may record without telling other parties. Federal default (18 U.S.C. § 2511).
- Alabama — Ala. Code § 13A-11-30
- Alaska — Alaska Stat. § 42.20.310
- Arizona — ARS § 13-3005
- Arkansas — Ark. Code § 5-60-120
- Colorado — CRS § 18-9-303
- District of Columbia — DC Code § 23-542
- Georgia — OCGA § 16-11-66 (in-person differs)
- Hawaii — HRS § 803-42
- Idaho — Idaho Code § 18-6702
- Indiana — Ind. Code § 35-33.5
- Iowa — Iowa Code § 808B.2
- Kansas — KSA § 21-6101
- Kentucky — KRS § 526.010
- Louisiana — La. RS 15:1303
- Maine — 15 MRSA § 710
- Minnesota — Minn. Stat. § 626A.02
- Mississippi — Miss. Code § 41-29-531
- Missouri — Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402
- Nebraska — Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290
- New Jersey — NJSA 2A:156A-4
- New Mexico — NMSA § 30-12-1
- New York — NY Penal Law § 250.05
- North Carolina — NCGS § 15A-287
- North Dakota — NDCC § 12.1-15-02
- Ohio — ORC § 2933.52
- Oklahoma — 13 Okla. Stat. § 176.4
- Oregon — ORS § 165.540 (telephonic; in-person all-party)
- Rhode Island — RIGL § 11-35-21
- South Carolina — SC Code § 17-30-30
- South Dakota — SDCL § 23A-35A-20
- Tennessee — T.C.A. § 39-13-601
- Texas — Tex. Penal Code § 16.02
- Utah — UCA § 77-23a-4
- Vermont — no statute; Geraw qualifier for in-home
- Virginia — Va. Code § 19.2-62
- West Virginia — W.Va. Code § 62-1D-3
- Wisconsin — Wis. Stat. § 968.31
- Wyoming — Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-702
All-party-consent
Every party must consent before recording. Notice plus continued participation is treated as implied consent in most of these states.
- California — Cal. Penal Code § 632
- Connecticut — CGS § 52-570d (civil; criminal differs)
- Delaware — 11 Del. C. § 1335 (contested; cautious practice is all-party)
- Florida — Fla. Stat. § 934.03
- Illinois — 720 ILCS 5/14-2
- Maryland — Md. CJP § 10-402
- Massachusetts — MGL ch. 272 § 99 (“secret” recording prohibited)
- Michigan — MCL § 750.539c (contested; cautious practice is all-party)
- Montana — MCA § 45-8-213
- Nevada — NRS § 200.620 (telephonic only; in-person one-party)
- New Hampshire — RSA § 570-A:2
- Pennsylvania — 18 Pa. CS § 5704
- Washington — RCW § 9.73.030
Territory:
- Puerto Rico — all-party (constitutional)
How to read this list
- Contested. Statute and case law point in different directions. The cautious practice is to assume the stricter rule.
- Different rules for in-person vs. telephonic. Some states (Oregon, Nevada) apply different consent rules to in-person and phone-call recording. Read the state page.
- Cross-border. When the call crosses state lines, the strictest applicable rule usually governs. See cross-border calls.
- This list is not authoritative. Statutes are amended. Always read the page of the relevant state for current detail.
For international jurisdictions
See the international overview. Most jurisdictions outside the US treat call recording as a data-protection question first; the criminal-statute question is secondary.