Recording-consent laws dataset — all 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico

Name: US recording-consent rules by state (52 jurisdictions)
Creator: MigrantUSA
License: https://migrantusa.com/terms/

Downloadable dataset classifying every US jurisdiction's recording-consent rule (one-party, all-party, or mixed) with the exact wiretapping statute citation, controlling case law, and official-source link per row.

Download: recording_consent.json · Coverage: 52 jurisdictions (50 states + D.C. + Puerto Rico) · Verified: June 11, 2026 · Refresh: annual re-verification, plus event-driven updates when a statute changes

The first machine-readable classification of every US jurisdiction’s recording-consent rule that includes Puerto Rico — which standard “eleven two-party states” lists omit, even though P.R. Penal Code Art. 169 makes it an express all-party jurisdiction.

The verified breakdown: 37 one-party, 9 all-party (CA, FL, IL, MD, MT, NH, PA, WA + Puerto Rico), 6 mixed (CT, DE, MA, MI, NV, OR).

What’s in each row

Field	Meaning
`rule`	one-party · all-party · mixed
`statute`	Exact statute citation (e.g., RCW 9.73.030)
`nuance_en` / `nuance_es`	The wrinkle that matters: participant rules, civil/criminal splits, secrecy triggers, case law
`source`	Official statute text link

Method

Researched June 11, 2026 in four parallel passes against official legislature texts, with controlling case law verified per state; classifications sanity-checked against the known hard cases (Michigan’s participant rule, Massachusetts’ secrecy trigger, Oregon’s announce rule upheld en banc in 2025). Annual re-verification is enforced by the site’s automated data-health budget.

Where this data is used

Recording rights — the 52-state consent table

Suggested citation: MigrantUSA, “Recording-consent laws dataset,” migrantusa.com/datasets/recording-consent-laws/, retrieved [date].

Frequently asked questions

What does one-party vs all-party consent mean?

In a one-party state, you may record a conversation you are part of without anyone else’s permission. In an all-party state, every participant in a private conversation must consent. Mixed jurisdictions have different rules for phone vs in-person conversations, criminal vs civil law, or secret vs open recording — the nuance field explains each one.

How was this verified?

Each of the 52 rows was verified against the official state-legislature statute text (or Cornell/Justia mirrors where the official site blocks automated access), plus the controlling court decisions that change a statute’s plain reading — for example Sullivan v. Gray in Michigan and Lane v. Allstate in Nevada. The raw research notes are preserved in the repository.

Does this cover recording the police?

Recording on-duty officers in public is 1st-Amendment-protected nationwide regardless of these statutes — see the know-your-rights recording page. This dataset covers the general rule for private conversations.

The rules change. Hear about it first.

Monthly digest of USCIS, IRS, and consulate fee, form, and deadline changes — no spam.

General information, not legal advice. MigrantUSA is an independent publisher and is not a law firm; using this site does not create an attorney-client relationship, and this content is not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney about your specific situation. US federal, state, and local government procedures, fees, and forms change. Always verify current details directly with the relevant agency before acting. For immigration, tax, or other legal matters specific to your situation, consult a licensed attorney or BIA-accredited representative.