Massachusetts Laws on Recording Police

Massachusetts residents may openly or secretly record police officers performing duties in public. The First Circuit held in Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins (2020) that applying Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99 to ban such recordings violates the First Amendment. Officers cannot order you to stop recording.

Massachusetts residents have a clear constitutional right to record police officers performing their duties in public. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit confirmed this right in Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020), ruling that the Massachusetts wiretap statute is unconstitutional when applied to secret recordings of police in public. This is a significant carve-out in a state where every other wiretap violation is a felony.

This guide explains your right to record police in Massachusetts, the legal boundaries of that right, body camera rules, and how the wiretap statute applies to law enforcement surveillance.

The Right to Record Police in Massachusetts

Project Veritas v. Rollins (2020)

In December 2020, the First Circuit issued its landmark ruling in Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins. The case challenged the Massachusetts wiretap statute's prohibition on secret recording as it applied to recording government officials, including police officers, performing their duties in public.

The First Circuit held that:

• The First Amendment protects the right to secretly record police officers performing their duties in public spaces
• Applying Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, Section 99 to prohibit secret recording of police in public is unconstitutional
• The public has a strong interest in monitoring police conduct, and secret recording serves that interest
• The government failed to demonstrate a sufficiently compelling reason to ban secret recording of police

This ruling means that in Massachusetts, you can record police officers openly or secretly when they are performing official duties in a public place. You are not required to announce that you are recording.

What This Right Covers

The First Amendment right to record police in Massachusetts includes:

• Traffic stops: Recording officers during a traffic stop on a public road
• Arrests: Recording officers making arrests in public
• Protests and demonstrations: Recording police activity at public gatherings
• Street interactions: Recording officers engaging with the public on sidewalks and streets
• Public meetings: Recording police officers attending or speaking at public forums
• Accident scenes: Recording officers responding to incidents in public areas

The right applies to recording with any device, including smartphones, cameras, body-worn cameras, and wearable devices. You can use video, audio, or both.

What This Right Does Not Cover

The First Amendment right to record police has limits:

• Private settings: The ruling applies to police performing duties in public. Recording officers inside a private home during a search, for example, may involve different legal considerations.
• Interference with police duties: You cannot physically obstruct officers while recording. Recording from a reasonable distance is protected; getting in an officer's way is not.
• Restricted areas: Crime scenes, secure facilities, and areas where public access is lawfully restricted may limit your ability to record.
• Private conversations between officers: The ruling specifically addressed recording of official police conduct. Recording private, off-duty conversations between officers may still trigger Section 99.

Your Rights During a Police Encounter

What Officers Can and Cannot Do

Officers CANNOT:

• Order you to stop recording their public duties
• Seize your phone or recording device because you are recording
• Arrest you solely for recording police activity
• Delete recordings from your device
• Demand that you show them your recording or unlock your phone
• Retaliate against you for exercising your right to record

Officers CAN:

• Ask you to move to a safe location if you are in danger or obstructing their work
• Establish a reasonable perimeter around an active crime scene
• Conduct a lawful search of your device only with a warrant (under Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014))

Practical Tips for Recording Police

If you choose to record police in Massachusetts:

1. Stay at a safe distance. You have the right to record, but you must not physically interfere with police operations.
2. Do not reach toward officers or make movements that could be perceived as threatening.
3. Keep your hands visible when possible, especially if an officer approaches you.
4. Stay calm and identify yourself if asked, but you are not required to explain why you are recording.
5. Do not resist if an officer unlawfully orders you to stop recording. Comply, note the officer's badge number, and file a complaint afterward.
6. Back up your recording to cloud storage as soon as possible. If your phone is seized, the cloud copy preserves the evidence.
7. Know your rights. If your recording is seized or deleted, contact the ACLU of Massachusetts or a civil rights attorney.

Filing a Complaint

If a police officer violates your right to record:

• File a complaint with the officer's department internal affairs division
• Contact the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office
• File a complaint with the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST), which oversees officer certification and discipline
• Consider filing a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for violation of your First Amendment rights

Police Body Cameras in Massachusetts

Current State of Body Camera Deployment

Massachusetts does not have a statewide mandate requiring all police officers to wear body cameras. Body camera adoption varies by department:

• The Boston Police Department has expanded its body camera program significantly since 2016, with department-wide deployment progressing through 2024 and 2025
• The Massachusetts State Police have implemented body cameras for patrol units
• Many municipal departments have adopted body cameras independently, while others have not

The 2020 Police Reform Law and Body-Worn Camera Framework

In December 2020, Massachusetts enacted a comprehensive police reform law, St. 2020, ch. 253, which:

• Created the Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission to certify and decertify officers
• Established standards for use of force
• Limited qualified immunity for officers
• Did not mandate body cameras statewide but encouraged adoption

The reform law also created Mass. Gen. Laws c. 6E, Section 18, which grants the POST Commission authority to promulgate regulations governing body-worn camera programs, including standards for activation, retention, and public access to footage. The POST Commission has used this authority to issue guidance to departments that operate body camera programs, though statewide mandatory deployment has not yet been required.

Body Camera Footage Access

When departments do use body cameras, public access to the footage is governed by Massachusetts public records law. Under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 66, Section 10, body camera footage is generally a public record, but several exemptions may limit access:

• Footage taken inside a private residence
• Footage that is part of an ongoing investigation
• Footage that identifies witnesses, victims, or confidential informants
• Footage depicting minors

Requests for body camera footage should be directed to the department that recorded it, citing the Massachusetts Public Records Law.

Police Wiretap Surveillance

Court Order Requirements Under Section 99

When law enforcement wants to conduct wiretap surveillance, they must follow strict procedures under Section 99 of the Massachusetts wiretap statute. The requirements include:

• Obtaining authorization from a designated judge (Superior Court justice or Supreme Judicial Court justice)
• Demonstrating probable cause that the target is committing or has committed a designated offense
• Showing that normal investigative procedures have failed or are reasonably unlikely to succeed
• Specifying the particular communications to be intercepted
• Limiting the duration of the wiretap (typically 30 days, with renewal available)

Commonwealth v. Du (2024)

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reinforced the warrant requirement in Commonwealth v. Du, 495 Mass. 103 (2024). In this case, officers used a cell phone to record video and audio during an undercover drug purchase without obtaining a wiretap warrant.

The court ruled that:

• The recording violated Section 99 because it was conducted without a proper court order
• Both the video and audio components of the recording had to be suppressed
• Even law enforcement officers must comply with Section 99's warrant requirements
• The "secret" element of the recording triggered the statute regardless of the law enforcement purpose

This ruling reinforced that Massachusetts takes its wiretap statute seriously even when applied to police investigations. Officers cannot bypass the warrant requirement simply because they believe recording is necessary for the investigation.

Commonwealth v. Grimaldi (2026): open recording is not "willful" interception

In Commonwealth v. Grimaldi, SJC-13842 (June 2, 2026), the SJC addressed the opposite scenario from Du: state troopers recorded a driver at a sobriety checkpoint using bodycams openly displayed at chest level, backed by a large roadside sign announcing audio-visual recording. The SJC held this was not a willful interception under Section 99, because willfulness requires an intent to record someone secretly, without their knowledge. Read together, Du and Grimaldi confirm that the secrecy element, not the fact that law enforcement is doing the recording, drives the analysis: police must get a warrant to record secretly, but openly displayed recording equipment with visible notice does not trigger the statute at all.

Designated Offenses for Wiretap Warrants

Section 99 limits wiretap warrants to specific categories of serious crime, including:

• Murder, kidnapping, and armed robbery
• Drug trafficking offenses
• Organized crime and racketeering
• Weapons offenses
• Bribery and corruption of public officials
• Terrorism-related offenses

Police cannot obtain a wiretap warrant for minor offenses or investigations that do not involve designated crimes.

Citizen Oversight and Accountability

The POST Commission

The Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission was established by the 2020 reform law to oversee police officer certification, training, and discipline. The commission has the power to:

• Certify and decertify police officers
• Investigate complaints of misconduct
• Establish training standards
• Maintain a public database of officer disciplinary records

Citizen recordings of police encounters can serve as evidence in POST Commission proceedings and are an important tool for police accountability.

The Role of Citizen Recording in Accountability

The First Circuit's Project Veritas ruling recognized that citizen recording of police serves a vital accountability function. The court noted that the ability to record police secretly is especially important because officers might alter their behavior when they know they are being recorded. Secret recording captures unguarded conduct that may reveal misconduct.

Massachusetts residents should understand that their recordings of police can:

• Serve as evidence in internal affairs investigations
• Support federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983
• Be submitted to the POST Commission
• Help establish patterns of misconduct
• Protect both citizens and officers by providing an objective record of events

Massachusetts Recording Laws by Topic

Phone Call Recording | Audio Recording | Video Recording | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras

Back to Massachusetts Recording Laws

Commonwealth v. Grimaldi (2026): bodycams at a checkpoint

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided Commonwealth v. Grimaldi, SJC-13842 on June 2, 2026. State troopers used openly displayed, chest-mounted bodycams and a large, reflective roadside sign warning of audio-visual recording at a sobriety checkpoint. The SJC held that the troopers did not commit a willful interception under Section 99, because willfulness requires an intent to record someone without their knowledge, and reversed a lower-court order suppressing the footage. The open display of the cameras and the visible warning sign negated the secrecy element the statute requires. The decision confirms that openly announced police recording equipment, including bodycams, does not violate the wiretap statute even without individualized consent from each person recorded.

More Massachusetts Recording Topics

• Massachusetts Biometric Privacy Laws
• Surveillance Camera Laws

More Massachusetts Laws

• Massachusetts AI Meeting Recording Laws
• Massachusetts Dashcam Laws
• Massachusetts Data Privacy Laws
• Massachusetts Deepfake Laws
• Massachusetts Employee Monitoring Laws
• Massachusetts GPS Tracking Laws
• Massachusetts Police Bodycam Laws
• Massachusetts Smart Glasses Recording Laws