All Comparison Tables
Recording Police in Public by State
Federal & State Law Editorial TeamLast reviewed: April 2026
Federal courts of appeal in every circuit that has ruled have held that recording police performing their duties in public is protected by the First Amendment. State wiretap statutes layer on top of that baseline, but even in all-party-consent states an on-duty officer acting in public typically lacks the reasonable expectation of privacy required to invoke those statutes.
50 States4 data columnsLast updated: 2026-05-23
Click any column header to sort ascending or descending. Click again to reverse, and a third time to reset.
| State | Audio Consent Law | First Amendment Right Recognized | Buffer Zone Law | Citation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | Ala. Code §13A-11-30; 11th Cir.: Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (2000) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Not yet ruled | No | Alaska Stat. §42.20.310; 9th Cir. general 1st Amdt. principles apply |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Not yet ruled | No — SB 1264 (2022) buffer-zone bill enjoined as unconstitutional | A.R.S. §13-3005; SB 1264 enjoined, Chrisafis v. State (D. Ariz. 2022) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Not yet ruled | No | Ark. Code Ann. §5-60-120; 8th Cir. general 1st Amdt. principles apply |
| — | All-party (audio requires consent, but officer in public typically lacks expectation of privacy) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | Cal. Penal Code §632; 9th Cir.: Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (1995); Askins v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035 (2018) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | C.R.S. §18-9-303; 10th Cir. general 1st Amdt. right recognized; Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022) |
| — | All-party (audio requires consent, but officer in public typically lacks expectation of privacy) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | Conn. Gen. Stat. §52-570d; 2nd Cir.: Higginbotham v. City of N.Y., 105 F. Supp. 3d 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (applied 2nd Cir. principles) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | Del. Code tit. 11 §2402; 3rd Cir.: Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (2017) |
| — | All-party (audio requires consent, but officer in public typically lacks expectation of privacy) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | Fla. Stat. §934.03; §934.02(2) excludes circumstances lacking reasonable expectation of privacy; 11th Cir.: Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (2000) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | O.C.G.A. §16-11-62; 11th Cir.: Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (2000) |
| — | All-party (audio requires consent, but officer in public typically lacks expectation of privacy) | Not yet ruled | No | Haw. Rev. Stat. §803-42; 9th Cir. general 1st Amdt. principles apply |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Not yet ruled | No | Idaho Code §18-6702; 9th Cir. general 1st Amdt. principles apply |
| — | All-party (audio requires consent, but officer in public typically lacks expectation of privacy) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | 720 ILCS 5/14-2; 7th Cir.: ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (2012) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | Ind. Code §35-33.5-1-5; 7th Cir.: ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (2012) (controlling circuit) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Not yet ruled | No | Iowa Code §808B.2; 8th Cir. general 1st Amdt. principles apply |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Not yet ruled | No | Kan. Stat. Ann. §21-6101; 10th Cir. general 1st Amdt. principles apply |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | KRS §526.010; 6th Cir.: Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (2017) (controlling circuit) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | La. R.S. §15:1303; 5th Cir.: Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (2017) (5th Cir. panel also ruled same day) |
| — | All-party (audio requires consent, but officer in public typically lacks expectation of privacy) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | 15 M.R.S. §710; 1st Cir.: Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (2011) |
| — | All-party (audio requires consent, but officer in public typically lacks expectation of privacy) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. §10-402; 4th Cir.: Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep't, 59 F.4th 674 (2023) |
| — | All-party (audio requires consent, but officer in public typically lacks expectation of privacy) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | Mass. Gen. Laws c. 272 §99; 1st Cir.: Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (2011) |
| — | All-party (audio requires consent, but officer in public typically lacks expectation of privacy) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | Mich. Comp. Laws §750.539c; 6th Cir.: Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (2017) (controlling circuit) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Not yet ruled | No | Minn. Stat. §626A.02; 8th Cir. general 1st Amdt. principles apply |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | Miss. Code Ann. §41-29-531; 5th Cir.: Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (2017) (controlling circuit) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Not yet ruled | No | Mo. Rev. Stat. §542.402; 8th Cir. general 1st Amdt. principles apply |
| — | All-party (audio requires consent, but officer in public typically lacks expectation of privacy) | Not yet ruled | No | Mont. Code Ann. §45-8-213; 9th Cir. general 1st Amdt. principles apply |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Not yet ruled | No | Neb. Rev. Stat. §86-290; 8th Cir. general 1st Amdt. principles apply |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Not yet ruled | No | Nev. Rev. Stat. §200.650; 9th Cir. general 1st Amdt. principles apply |
| — | All-party (audio requires consent, but officer in public typically lacks expectation of privacy) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | N.H. Rev. Stat. §570-A:2; 1st Cir.: Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (2011) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | N.J. Stat. Ann. §2A:156A-3; 3rd Cir.: Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (2017) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Not yet ruled | No | N.M. Stat. Ann. §30-12-1; 10th Cir. general 1st Amdt. principles apply |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | N.Y. Penal Law §250.05; 2nd Cir.: Higginbotham v. City of N.Y., 105 F. Supp. 3d 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); Defore v. Premore, 86 F.3d 48 (2nd Cir. 1996) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | N.C. Gen. Stat. §15A-287; 4th Cir.: Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep't, 59 F.4th 674 (2023) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Not yet ruled | No | N.D. Cent. Code §12.1-15-02; 8th Cir. general 1st Amdt. principles apply |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | Ohio Rev. Code §2933.52; 6th Cir.: Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (2017) (controlling circuit) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Not yet ruled | No | Okla. Stat. tit. 13 §176.4; 10th Cir. general 1st Amdt. principles apply |
| — | All-party (audio requires consent, but officer in public typically lacks expectation of privacy) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | Or. Rev. Stat. §165.540; 9th Cir.: Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (1995); Askins v. U.S. DHS, 899 F.3d 1035 (2018) |
| — | All-party (audio requires consent, but officer in public typically lacks expectation of privacy) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §5703; 3rd Cir.: Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (2017) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | R.I. Gen. Laws §11-35-21; 1st Cir.: Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (2011) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | S.C. Code Ann. §17-30-20; 4th Cir.: Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep't, 59 F.4th 674 (2023) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Not yet ruled | No | S.D. Codified Laws §23A-35A-20; 8th Cir. general 1st Amdt. principles apply |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | Tenn. Code Ann. §39-13-601; 6th Cir.: Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (2017) (controlling circuit) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | Tex. Penal Code §16.02; 5th Cir.: Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (2017) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Not yet ruled | No | Utah Code Ann. §77-23a-4; 10th Cir. general 1st Amdt. principles apply |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13 §4601; 2nd Cir. general 1st Amdt. right recognized |
| — | All-party (audio requires consent, but officer in public typically lacks expectation of privacy) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | Va. Code Ann. §19.2-62; 4th Cir.: Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep't, 59 F.4th 674 (2023) |
| — | All-party (audio requires consent, but officer in public typically lacks expectation of privacy) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | RCW §9.73.030; 9th Cir.: Askins v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035 (2018) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | W. Va. Code §62-1D-3; 4th Cir.: Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep't, 59 F.4th 674 (2023) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | Wis. Stat. §968.31; 7th Cir.: ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (2012) |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Not yet ruled | No | Wyo. Stat. Ann. §7-3-702; 10th Cir. general 1st Amdt. principles apply |
| — | One-party (audio not restricted) | Yes — recognized by circuit court | No | D.C. Code §23-542; D.C. Cir.: Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022) (persuasive); Kenley v. D.C., 83 F. Supp. 3d 20 (D.D.C. 2015) |
Federal First Amendment protection for recording on-duty police in public has been recognized by every U.S. Court of Appeals to address the question, but the precise contours (buffer distances, audio vs. video, interference doctrine) remain in active litigation. State wiretap statutes layer on top; even in all-party-consent states, an on-duty officer in a public place typically lacks the reasonable expectation of privacy required to invoke the statute. Always assess the specific facts before relying on this table. This is legal information, not legal advice.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.