EnglishEspañol
Maryland flag

Maryland

Maryland Audio Recording Laws: Two-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 22, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 22, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Maryland Audio Recording Laws: Two-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)

Frequently Asked Questions

Is it illegal to record a conversation in Maryland without permission?

Yes. Maryland is a two-party (all-party) consent state. Recording any private oral, wire, or electronic communication without the consent of every participant is a felony under Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. ss 10-402. Penalties include up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Does Maryland require two-party consent for audio recording?

Yes. Maryland requires the consent of all parties to a communication, not just two. The term two-party consent is commonly used but slightly misleading. If five people are in a conversation, all five must agree before anyone can record.

Can I record my own conversation in Maryland?

You can record a conversation you are part of, but only if every other participant also consents. Being a party to the conversation does not give you the right to record it without the knowledge and agreement of the others.

What are the penalties for illegal audio recording in Maryland?

Illegal audio recording is a felony in Maryland. The maximum criminal penalty is 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Civil liability adds a minimum of $100 per day of violation or $1,000 (whichever is greater), plus punitive damages and attorney fees under ss 10-410.

Are there any exceptions to Maryland audio recording consent requirements?

Yes. Exceptions include law enforcement acting under a court order, body-worn cameras used by uniformed officers who give notification, 911 calls, and communications where no party has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Law enforcement may also use one-party consent when investigating specific serious crimes like murder and kidnapping.

Updates

Corrected a claim that a 2025 bill (HB 748) expanded the body-worn camera exception to municipal enforcement officers; that bill died in the Senate and never became law. Also fixed the New York comparison, which misstated illegal eavesdropping there as a misdemeanor when it is a Class E felony.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Sources and References

  1. Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. ss 10-402 - Interception of Communications(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
  2. Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. ss 10-401 - Definitions(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
  3. Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. ss 10-405 - Use of Intercepted Communications as Evidence(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
  4. Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. ss 10-410 - Civil Liability(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
  5. HB 748 (2025) - Body-Worn Camera Municipal Officers (passed House 115-22; died in Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, never enacted)(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
  6. SB 661 (2026) - Intercepted Communications Admissibility(mgaleg.maryland.gov).gov
  7. 18 U.S.C. ss 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
Share: