Recording rights — filming ICE and police in public
The 1st Amendment protects the right to gather information about government conduct. The federal Circuit Courts have applied that principle to the recording of on-duty officers in public — every Circuit to reach the question has held that recording is constitutionally protected.
This page covers what is legal, what is risky, and how to record an encounter safely so that the video preserves the legal challenge instead of escalating into a separate incident.
The legal foundation
The right to record officers in public rests on three constitutional and statutory pillars.
1st Amendment — the right to record
Six federal Circuit Courts have held explicitly that the 1st Amendment protects the right to record on-duty officers in public:
- 1st Circuit: Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011)
- 3rd Circuit: Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017)
- 5th Circuit: Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017)
- 7th Circuit: ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012)
- 9th Circuit: Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognized in earlier form); Adkins v. Limtiaco, 537 F. App’x 721 (9th Cir. 2013)
- 11th Circuit: Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000)
In Circuits where the rule has not been explicitly settled, the right is still generally recognized.
4th Amendment — protection from search/seizure of your phone
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) held that police generally need a warrant to search the contents of a mobile phone, even when seized incident to a lawful arrest. Officers cannot lawfully seize your phone, search it, or delete recordings without a warrant.
State consent laws for recording conversations
Recording on-duty officers in public is constitutionally protected everywhere (above). But for everything else you might record — a phone call with a landlord, a conversation with an employer, a meeting — the rule is set by your state’s wiretapping/eavesdropping statute, and the rules differ sharply:
- 8 states + Puerto Rico require all-party consent for private conversations: California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Puerto Rico. Even in these, the statutes typically protect only conversations with a reasonable expectation of privacy — which on-duty officers in public do not have. Several of them say so explicitly: Montana’s law exempts public officials performing official duties; Washington courts held police encounters are not “private” (State v. Flora); the 7th Circuit’s ACLU v. Alvarez struck down applying Illinois’s statute to recording police in public.
- 6 states have mixed or unusual rules — Connecticut (criminal law is one-party, but phone recordings without all-party consent create civil liability), Delaware (two conflicting statutes), Massachusetts (the trigger is secrecy, not consent — secret recording is criminal even for participants, Commonwealth v. Hyde), Michigan (participants may record despite all-party text, Sullivan v. Gray), Nevada (all-party for phone calls only, Lane v. Allstate), and Oregon (in-person recording requires announcing it to all participants — but openly recording on-duty police is expressly allowed).
- The remaining 37 jurisdictions are one-party consent: if you are part of the conversation, you may record it.
State-by-state table: who has to consent
Across the 52 jurisdictions (50 states + D.C. + Puerto Rico): 37 are one-party consent, 9 require all-party consent, and 6 have mixed rules (for example, one rule for phone calls and another for in-person conversations).
| State | Rule | Statute | Key detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | One-party | Ala. Code §§ 13A-11-30, 13A-11-31 | A participant may always record; only conversations in a private place are protected at all. |
| Alaska | One-party | Alaska Stat. § 42.20.310 | Reaches only third-party interception; the state constitution separately requires POLICE to get a warrant before recording (State v. Glass, 1978). |
| Arizona | One-party | Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-3005, 13-3012(9) | Unusually broad: anyone merely 'present during the communication' may consent. |
| Arkansas | One-party | Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-120 | — |
| California | All-party | Cal. Penal Code §§ 632, 632.7 | Applies to 'confidential communications' only — public settings are excluded; § 632.7 separately covers cell/cordless calls (Smith v. LoanMe, 2021). |
| Colorado | One-party | Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-9-303, 18-9-304 | Both statutes reach only outsiders — a participant in the conversation may always record. |
| Connecticut | Mixed Phone: civil liability if all parties don't consent | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 53a-189, 52-570d | Criminal law is one-party, but § 52-570d allows civil LAWSUITS over phone recordings made without all-party consent, recorded notice, or a beep tone. |
| Delaware | Mixed | 11 Del. C. § 2402(c)(4); cf. § 1335 | The wiretap law is one-party, but an older privacy law reads all-party; courts lean one-party (U.S. v. Vespe, 1975) — cautious guides treat Delaware as all-party. |
| District of Columbia | One-party | D.C. Code § 23-542(b)(3) | The exception is void if the recording serves a criminal or tortious purpose; civil damages are also available. |
| Florida | All-party | Fla. Stat. § 934.03 | Covers only conversations with a reasonable expectation of privacy — public or easily-overheard settings are excluded (State v. Inciarrano, 1985). |
| Georgia | One-party | Ga. Code Ann. §§ 16-11-62, 16-11-66(a) | A party may record conversations, but secret VIDEO in private places still requires consent of everyone observed. |
| Hawaii | One-party | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 803-42(b)(3) | One-party for participants, but INSTALLING a device in a private place requires consent of everyone entitled to privacy there. |
| Idaho | One-party | Idaho Code § 18-6702(2)(d) | Exception lost if the recording is made to commit a criminal act. |
| Illinois | All-party | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 | Only SURREPTITIOUS recording of private conversations is criminal — open recording, and recording on-duty police in public, are outside the law (ACLU v. Alvarez, 7th Cir. 2012). |
| Indiana | One-party | Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-5 | The wiretap law covers only electronic communications intercepted by non-parties — participants may always record. |
| Iowa | One-party | Iowa Code §§ 808B.2(2)(c), 727.8 | — |
| Kansas | One-party | Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6101(a) | Concealed-device surveillance of a private place is separately barred; a participant recording their own conversation is not. |
| Kentucky | One-party | Ky. Rev. Stat. §§ 526.010, 526.020 | — |
| Louisiana | One-party | La. Rev. Stat. § 15:1303(C)(4) | Covers only conversations with privacy expectations; the exception is lost for criminal, tortious, or 'injurious' purposes. |
| Maine | One-party | 15 Me. Rev. Stat. §§ 709(4), 710 | Overhearing within normal unaided hearing range is never 'interception.' |
| Maryland | All-party | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402 | Covers only conversations with a reasonable expectation of privacy — on-duty police in public are generally outside the law (Agnew v. State, 2018). |
| Massachusetts | Mixed | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99 | The trigger is SECRECY, not consent: secret recording is criminal even for participants (Comm. v. Hyde, 2001); open recording is lawful; secretly recording police in public is constitutionally protected (Project Veritas v. Rollins, 1st Cir. 2020). |
| Michigan | Mixed | Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539c | Reads all-party, but courts hold a PARTICIPANT may record without consent (Sullivan v. Gray, 1982) — all-party only for third-party eavesdropping. |
| Minnesota | One-party | Minn. Stat. § 626A.02, subd. 2(d) | — |
| Mississippi | One-party | Miss. Code Ann. § 41-29-531(e) | — |
| Missouri | One-party | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 542.402.2(3) | The consent exception is written around phone calls; purely in-person participant recording is largely outside the statute's reach. |
| Montana | All-party | Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213 | Does NOT apply to public officials or employees performing official duties, to public meetings, or where a warning of the recording is given — an announced recording is lawful. |
| Nebraska | One-party | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-290(2)(c) | — |
| Nevada | Mixed Phone: all-party for phone calls | NRS 200.620 (phone); NRS 200.650 (in person) | Phone calls require ALL parties' consent even for participants (Lane v. Allstate, 1998); in-person conversations are one-party for participants. |
| New Hampshire | All-party | N.H. RSA 570-A:2 | Recording without all-party consent is a felony, reduced to a misdemeanor when a participant records knowingly (RSA 570-A:2, I-a). |
| New Jersey | One-party | N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-4(d) | Exception lost for criminal, tortious, or 'other injurious' purposes; owning the phone line is expressly NOT consent. |
| New Mexico | One-party | NMSA 1978, § 30-12-1 | Covers only wire (phone) interception by outsiders — in-person conversations are outside the statute entirely (State v. Hogervorst, 1977). |
| New York | One-party | N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05 | Participants fall outside the eavesdropping crime by definition; parents may record young children's calls ('vicarious consent,' People v. Badalamenti, 2016). |
| North Carolina | One-party | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-287 | Violation is a Class H felony — harsher than most one-party states. |
| North Dakota | One-party | N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-15-02 | Party consent is an affirmative defense rather than an exclusion, and fails if the recording aims at a crime or unlawful harm. |
| Ohio | One-party | Ohio Rev. Code § 2933.52(B)(4) | Exception lost for criminal, tortious, or 'other injurious' purposes. |
| Oklahoma | One-party | 13 O.S. § 176.4 | — |
| Oregon | Mixed Phone: one-party for phone calls | ORS 165.540 | Phone recording is one-party, but in-person conversations require that ALL participants be 'specifically informed' (announced, not consented); openly recording on-duty police is expressly allowed. Upheld en banc, Project Veritas v. Schmidt (9th Cir. 2025). |
| Pennsylvania | All-party | 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5703, 5704 | Covers only communications with an expectation of privacy — on-duty police generally cannot claim it; smartphones count as intercept devices (Comm. v. Smith, 2016); police body cams are exempted (Act 22 of 2017). |
| Puerto Rico | All-party | P.R. Penal Code Art. 169 (33 L.P.R.A. § 5235) | Recording a private communication without ALL parties' express consent is a misdemeanor even for participants; third-party wiretapping is banned by the P.R. Constitution itself (Art. II § 10). |
| Rhode Island | One-party | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-35-21 | — |
| South Carolina | One-party | S.C. Code Ann. § 17-30-30 | All-party bills have been introduced repeatedly (latest H.3593, 2025-26) but never enacted — still one-party. |
| South Dakota | One-party | S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35A-20 | — |
| Tennessee | One-party | Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-601 | — |
| Texas | One-party | Tex. Penal Code § 16.02(c)(4) | — |
| Utah | One-party | Utah Code § 77-23a-4 | — |
| Vermont | One-party | No state statute — federal rule applies (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) | The only state with NO wiretap statute — the federal one-party rule is the baseline; Vermont case law restricts STATE ACTORS, not private recording. |
| Virginia | One-party | Va. Code § 19.2-62 | In-person conversations are protected only with a justified expectation of privacy — public conversations are generally excluded. |
| Washington | All-party | RCW 9.73.030 | Covers only 'private' conversations — courts hold on-duty police encounters are NOT private (State v. Flora, 1992; Lewis v. Dep't of Licensing, 2006); announcing the recording on tape also satisfies the law. |
| West Virginia | One-party | W. Va. Code § 62-1D-3 | — |
| Wisconsin | One-party | Wis. Stat. § 968.31(2)(c) | One-party criminally, but a recorded phone call is inadmissible in CIVIL court unless the other party was told it might be used there (Wis. Stat. § 885.365). |
| Wyoming | One-party | Wyo. Stat. § 7-3-702 | — |
Statutes verified 2026-06-11 against each state's official statute text. This table describes the general rule for private conversations; recording on-duty public officers in public is 1st-Amendment-protected nationwide (see above).
What you can lawfully record
| What | Status |
|---|---|
| ICE / police in a public space (sidewalk, street, park) | ✅ Protected |
| ICE / police on a public-access area of your property (front yard visible from street) | ✅ Protected (your property + public-access angle) |
| ICE / police entering your home (from your doorway) | ✅ Protected |
| Audio + video together | ✅ Protected (constitutional rule overrides state two-party laws for public officers) |
| Officers’ badge numbers, vehicle plates, name tags | ✅ Protected |
| Live-stream to a platform | ✅ Protected (and recommended — preserves footage if phone is seized) |
| Inside an active crime scene perimeter you have been ordered to leave | ❌ Officers can lawfully exclude you on safety/perimeter grounds |
| Physically obstructing officers | ❌ Separate offense; lawful order to step back must be obeyed |
| Recording in restricted federal facilities (some courthouses, federal buildings) | ❌ Often prohibited by separate facility rules |
How to record safely
- Stay back. Maintain 10-15 feet minimum unless local conditions require more.
- Do not interfere. Stand to the side, not between officers and their work.
- Hold the camera visibly. Concealed recording is more legally vulnerable in some states; open recording is fully protected.
- Get the badge, the vehicle, the time. Pan briefly to capture identifiers, then back to the action.
- Narrate factually. Brief, neutral commentary (“Officer X is approaching the apartment door at 3:14 PM”) can preserve context. Do not insult officers or be confrontational on the recording.
- Live-stream if possible. Apps like the ACLU’s Mobile Justice (for several states), Facebook Live, Instagram Live preserve the footage to the cloud immediately — so even if your phone is seized, the footage is safe.
- If asked to step back: comply, but continue to record from a distance. The 1st Amendment right to record is not waived by complying with a lawful spatial order.
- If told to stop recording: verbalize the right: “I am exercising my 1st Amendment right to record.” Physical resistance is not advisable — verbal objections preserve legal claims if they attempt to seize the phone.
What to do if your recording is interfered with
- Document the interference itself if you can — switch to a second phone, livestream, or have a companion record.
- Verbalize on the record: “I do not consent to this seizure. This is a 4th Amendment violation.”
- Note details: officer’s name and badge, time, witnesses, what was said, what was done with the phone.
- File a 1st Amendment retaliation complaint with the agency’s internal affairs / civil-rights office and, in serious cases, contact a civil-rights attorney. Fields v. City of Philadelphia recognized that retaliation against protected recording is itself a separate constitutional violation.
- 42 U.S.C. §1983 claims are available for deprivation of federal rights by state actors.
The ACLU’s Mobile Justice app
Several state ACLU affiliates publish a “Mobile Justice” app that combines live-streaming, automatic cloud backup, and a “Know Your Rights” reference into one tool. Available in California (ACLU CA), Texas, New York, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Nevada, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and others. Free; preserves the recording even if the phone is taken.
Special case: federal-property recording
Recording is generally permitted on the exterior of federal buildings and on public sidewalks adjoining them. Inside federal facilities, agency-specific rules apply — many courthouses, ICE field offices, and federal buildings prohibit photography or recording without permission. Follow posted signs; agency rules can be enforced against you even where the 1st Amendment would otherwise protect you in the open public.
Related information
- ICE in public spaces
- ICE at your home
- Right to remain silent
- Right to an attorney
- Family preparedness plan
- How to find pro-bono legal help
- How to find an immigration attorney
Last verified: 2026-06-11. General information, not legal advice. For an active encounter or any specific case, contact a licensed immigration attorney or civil-rights attorney immediately.