Recording-consent laws dataset — all 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico
Downloadable dataset classifying every US jurisdiction's recording-consent rule as one-party, all-party or mixed, with statute, case law and source link.
Recording-consent laws dataset
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.
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.
Cite this dataset
Free to use under CC BY 4.0 — share and adapt, with attribution. If it was useful enough to build on, a citation is the whole ask.
MigrantUSA Editorial (2026). US recording-consent rules by state (52 jurisdictions), in
US Immigration Data. 10.5281/zenodo.21812233
The underlying facts come from the official sources cited inside each file and carry no copyright; what we contribute is the curation, verification, and the banked history. If your claim rests on what a value used to be, cite the government source for the fact and this record for the change.
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.
Type at least 2 letters. Results from this language of the site.