Can You Record the Police? Rules by State
Choose a state and describe the situation. The tool lists the laws and court rulings that apply, with citations, their current status and the date we last checked them. It does not tell you whether a particular recording is lawful; that depends on facts only a court can weigh.
We do not store your answers. The results are built in your browser from a fixed dataset. Your choices appear in the page address so you can share it, and like any page address it may be recorded by site analytics.
Court rulings and buffer laws checked September 29, 2026; obstruction statutes re-opened on official code sites September 30, 2026.
Select a state to see the rules.
How the rules fit together
Four layers decide how the law treats recording police. First, the First Amendment: most federal appeals courts have recognized a right to record officers doing their jobs in public, but not all of them, and the Supreme Court has never decided it.
Second, qualified immunity. Even where a court says the right exists, an officer can win a damages suit if the right was not clearly established when the event happened. That is why several circuits recognize the right and still rule for the officer.
Third, state statutes: obstruction and interference laws, buffer-zone laws that make it an offense to approach an officer after a warning, and eavesdropping laws that can reach audio. Fourth, the setting: a traffic stop, a protest, a government building or a drone each adds its own rules.
Buffer-zone laws by state
A buffer-zone law makes it an offense to approach (and in some states to remain) within a set distance of an officer or first responder after a warning. The distances differ, from 8 feet in Arizona to 30 feet in West Virginia, and most laws also require intent to interfere, threaten or harass. Several are in court.
- Arizona: A.R.S. 13-3732, 8 ft, HB 2319 (2022) (partly blocked by court). Permanently blocked by a federal court order and declaratory judgment (Arizona Broadcasters Ass'n v. Mayes, D. Ariz., July 21, 2023). The defendants are permanently enjoined from enforcing it "against any person or entity"; the defendants bound are the Arizona Attorney General and the Maricopa County Attorney and Sheriff (and those acting with them who have notice). The statute is still printed in the Arizona code.
- Indiana: IC 35-44.1-2-14, 25 ft, HEA 1186 (2023) (partly blocked by court). The Seventh Circuit upheld this section on its face (Nicodemus, May 15, 2025) but affirmed a preliminary injunction on vagueness grounds (Reporters Committee v. Rokita, Aug. 5, 2025). The final judgment (Jan. 9, 2026) blocks enforcement only against members and employees of the plaintiff news organizations, and binds the Attorney General and Marion County officials. It can still be enforced against everyone else.
- Indiana: IC 35-44.1-2-15, 25 ft, HB 1122 (2025) (in force). Added in 2025 (described by the Seventh Circuit in Reporters Committee v. Rokita). It does not repeal section 14. We found no court challenge to it.
- Louisiana: La. R.S. 14:109, 25 ft, HB 173 / Act 259 (2024) (partly blocked by court). A federal court preliminarily blocked it on vagueness grounds (Deep South Today v. Murrill, M.D. La., Jan. 31, 2025). The order binds only the Attorney General, the State Police superintendent and the East Baton Rouge district attorney. The Fifth Circuit heard the appeal on June 1, 2026 (No. 25-30128); we found no decision yet.
- Florida: Fla. Stat. 843.31, 25 ft, SB 184 (2024), ch. 2024-85 (in force, challenged). In force. A First Amendment challenge was filed on Sept. 29, 2026 (Wilkins v. Alvarez, M.D. Fla. No. 8:26-cv-02989); no ruling yet.
- Tennessee: Tenn. Code Ann. 39-16-612, 25 ft, Pub. Ch. 409 (2025) (in force, challenged). In force. A federal court denied a preliminary injunction (Gannett v. Long, M.D. Tenn., Feb. 17, 2026); the Sixth Circuit hears the appeal on Oct. 21, 2026 (No. 26-5182). A separate Memphis suit (Demster v. Blanche) had a hearing on Sept. 23, 2026 (secondary source).
- Oklahoma: 21 O.S. 540D, 25 ft, HB 1597 (2025) (in force). In force (became law without the Governor's signature on May 15, 2025). We found no court challenge.
- Missouri: RSMo 574.207, 20 ft, HB 225 (2025) (in force). In force. The statute says it "shall not restrict the ability to observe or record first responders." We found no court challenge.
- West Virginia: W. Va. Code 61-5-31, 30 ft, SB 4 (2026) (in force). In force since June 12, 2026. We found no court challenge.
- Kansas: Senate Sub. for HB 2372 (2026), New Sec. 5, 25 ft, Senate Sub. for HB 2372 (2026) (in force). Enacted over the Governor's veto in 2026; effective on publication in the statute book (reported as July 1, 2026, secondary source). We found no court challenge. The Kansas statute section number was not confirmed.
- Kentucky: KRS ch. 519 (2026 SB 104, Acts ch. 96), 25 ft, SB 104 (2026) (in force). In force (became law without the Governor's signature on Apr. 12, 2026). A House floor amendment that would have added a recording exception (Floor Amendment 3) was defeated. We found no court challenge.
- Ohio: R.C. 2921.31(C), 15 ft, Sub. HB 20 (136th G.A.) (not yet in force). Signed in July 2026; takes effect Oct. 6, 2026 (Ohio Legislature bill page). We found no court challenge.
Proposals that are not law: Michigan HB 5574-5576 (25 ft) passed the House on June 9, 2026 and is in a Senate committee; federal bills S. 3179 (25 ft, immigration officers) and H.R. 8796 (15 ft, federal officers) have been introduced. No federal buffer law has been enacted.
All 50 states and DC
The table summarizes each state. Choose a state in the checker for the full list of rules and citations.
| State | Federal circuit | Buffer-zone law | Audio consent | Obstruction statute |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Eleventh Circuit: right recognized; clearly established status uncertain | None found (last check) | One-party | Ala. Code 13A-10-2 |
| Alaska | Ninth Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | None found (last check) | One-party | Alaska Stat. 11.56.700 |
| Arizona | Ninth Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | 8 ft, A.R.S. 13-3732 (partly blocked by court) | One-party | Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-2402 |
| Arkansas | Eighth Circuit: not decided | None found (last check) | One-party | Ark. Code Ann. 5-54-102 |
| California | Ninth Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | None found (last check) | All-party (phone calls and in-person conversations) | Cal. Penal Code 148(a)(1) |
| Colorado | Tenth Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | None found (last check) | One-party | Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-8-104(1)(a) |
| Connecticut | Second Circuit: right recognized; clearly established status uncertain | None found (last check) | All-party (phone calls only; in-person conversations follow a different rule) | Conn. Gen. Stat. 53a-167a |
| Delaware | Third Circuit: right recognized; clearly established status uncertain | None found (last check) | All-party (two statutes conflict) | Del. Code tit. 11, 1257(b) |
| District of Columbia | D.C. Circuit: not decided | None found (last check) | One-party | D.C. Code 22-405.01(b) |
| Florida | Eleventh Circuit: right recognized; clearly established status uncertain | 25 ft, Fla. Stat. 843.31 (in force, challenged) | All-party (phone calls and in-person conversations) | Fla. Stat. 843.02 |
| Georgia | Eleventh Circuit: right recognized; clearly established status uncertain | None found (last check) | One-party | O.C.G.A. 16-10-24 (secondary source) |
| Hawaii | Ninth Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | None found (last check) | One-party | Haw. Rev. Stat. 710-1010 |
| Idaho | Ninth Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | None found (last check) | One-party | Idaho Code 18-705 |
| Illinois | Seventh Circuit: right recognized; no published qualified-immunity ruling found | None found (last check) | All-party (phone calls and in-person conversations) | 720 ILCS 5/31-1(a) |
| Indiana | Seventh Circuit: right recognized; no published qualified-immunity ruling found | 25 ft, IC 35-44.1-2-14 (partly blocked by court); 25 ft, IC 35-44.1-2-15 (in force) | One-party | Ind. Code 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1) |
| Iowa | Eighth Circuit: not decided | None found (last check) | One-party | Iowa Code 719.1(1)(a) |
| Kansas | Tenth Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | 25 ft, Senate Sub. for HB 2372 (2026), New Sec. 5 (in force) | One-party | K.S.A. 21-5904(a)(3) |
| Kentucky | Sixth Circuit: not decided | 25 ft, KRS ch. 519 (2026 SB 104, Acts ch. 96) (in force) | One-party | KRS 519.020(1) |
| Louisiana | Fifth Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | 25 ft, La. R.S. 14:109 (partly blocked by court) | One-party | La. R.S. 14:108(A) |
| Maine | First Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | None found (last check) | One-party | 17-A M.R.S. 751(1) |
| Maryland | Fourth Circuit: only a narrow version recognized | None found (last check) | All-party (phone calls and in-person conversations) | Md. Code, Crim. Law 9-408(b) |
| Massachusetts | First Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | None found (last check) | All-party (phone calls and in-person conversations) | Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 268, s. 32B |
| Michigan | Sixth Circuit: not decided | None found (last check) | One-party | Mich. Comp. Laws 750.81d(1), (7)(a) |
| Minnesota | Eighth Circuit: not decided | None found (last check) | One-party | Minn. Stat. 609.50, subd. 1(2) |
| Mississippi | Fifth Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | None found (last check) | One-party | Miss. Code Ann. 97-9-73 (secondary source) |
| Missouri | Eighth Circuit: not decided | 20 ft, RSMo 574.207 (in force) | One-party | Mo. Rev. Stat. 575.150.1 |
| Montana | Ninth Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | None found (last check) | All-party (phone calls and in-person conversations) | Mont. Code Ann. 45-7-302 |
| Nebraska | Eighth Circuit: not decided | None found (last check) | One-party | Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-901(1) |
| Nevada | Ninth Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | None found (last check) | All-party (phone calls only; in-person conversations follow a different rule) | Nev. Rev. Stat. 199.280 |
| New Hampshire | First Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | None found (last check) | All-party (phone calls and in-person conversations) | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 642:1, I |
| New Jersey | Third Circuit: right recognized; clearly established status uncertain | None found (last check) | One-party | N.J.S.A. 2C:29-1 |
| New Mexico | Tenth Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | None found (last check) | One-party | N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-22-1 |
| New York | Second Circuit: right recognized; clearly established status uncertain | None found (last check) | One-party | N.Y. Penal Law 195.05 |
| North Carolina | Fourth Circuit: only a narrow version recognized | None found (last check) | One-party | N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-223 |
| North Dakota | Eighth Circuit: not decided | None found (last check) | One-party | N.D. Cent. Code 12.1-08-01 |
| Ohio | Sixth Circuit: not decided | 15 ft, R.C. 2921.31(C) (not yet in force) | One-party | Ohio Rev. Code 2921.31(A) |
| Oklahoma | Tenth Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | 25 ft, 21 O.S. 540D (in force) | One-party | Okla. Stat. tit. 21, 540 |
| Oregon | Ninth Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | None found (last check) | All-party (in-person conversations only) | ORS 162.247 |
| Pennsylvania | Third Circuit: right recognized; clearly established status uncertain | None found (last check) | All-party (phone calls and in-person conversations) | 18 Pa.C.S. 5101 |
| Rhode Island | First Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | None found (last check) | One-party | R.I. Gen. Laws 11-32-1 |
| South Carolina | Fourth Circuit: only a narrow version recognized | None found (last check) | One-party | S.C. Code 16-9-320(A) |
| South Dakota | Eighth Circuit: not decided | None found (last check) | One-party | S.D. Codified Laws 22-11-6 |
| Tennessee | Sixth Circuit: not decided | 25 ft, Tenn. Code Ann. 39-16-612 (in force, challenged) | One-party | Tenn. Code Ann. 39-16-602(a) (secondary source) |
| Texas | Fifth Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | None found (last check) | One-party | Tex. Penal Code 38.15 |
| Utah | Tenth Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | None found (last check) | One-party | Utah Code 76-8-305 |
| Vermont | Second Circuit: right recognized; clearly established status uncertain | None found (last check) | One-party | 13 V.S.A. 3001(a) |
| Virginia | Fourth Circuit: only a narrow version recognized | None found (last check) | One-party | Va. Code 18.2-460(A) |
| Washington | Ninth Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | None found (last check) | All-party (phone calls and in-person conversations) | RCW 9A.76.020 |
| West Virginia | Fourth Circuit: only a narrow version recognized | 30 ft, W. Va. Code 61-5-31 (in force) | One-party | W. Va. Code 61-5-17(a) |
| Wisconsin | Seventh Circuit: right recognized; no published qualified-immunity ruling found | None found (last check) | One-party | Wis. Stat. 946.41(1) |
| Wyoming | Tenth Circuit: right recognized; treated as clearly established | None found (last check) | One-party | Wyo. Stat. 6-5-204(a) |
Audio and all-party states
Video without sound is generally outside wiretap statutes; audio is where state eavesdropping laws come in. In the all-party states listed in our consent classification, the statutes are written around private or confidential conversations, and courts have mostly found that officers speaking in public lack that privacy. Massachusetts, Oregon and Montana are the states where how you record changes the answer.
Federal agents and drones
Federal officers are covered by the same First Amendment case law as local police. Federal statutes add offenses for forcibly assaulting, resisting or interfering with federal officers (18 U.S.C. 111), and, on federal property under the protection of the Department of Homeland Security, rules on photography and recording (6 CFR 139.65, which replaced the older GSA rule at 41 CFR 102-74.420 in 2026). Drone flights add FAA rules and temporary flight restrictions, which change often; check the FAA's current list before flying.
What this tool does not do
- It does not say whether your recording is lawful or whether you could be arrested. It lists rules and what courts said.
- It covers each state's general obstruction statute, not every disorderly-conduct, failure-to-obey or failure-to-identify law, and not local ordinances.
- A "none found" buffer-law row means our last search found none, not that none exists.
- Court cases and new laws change these rules. Each row shows when we checked it and any dates we are watching.
This tool is legal information, not legal advice. For advice about a specific situation, talk to a lawyer licensed in your state.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can you record the police in the United States?
Most federal appeals courts have recognized a First Amendment right to record officers doing their jobs in public, subject to reasonable time, place and manner limits. The Fourth Circuit has recognized only a narrower version, the Sixth, Eighth and D.C. Circuits have not decided it, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on it. State laws on obstruction, buffer zones and audio also apply.
What is a police buffer-zone law?
It makes it an offense to approach (or in some states remain) within a set distance of an officer or first responder after a warning. Distances range from 8 to 30 feet, most laws also require intent to interfere, threaten or harass, and several have been challenged in court. The table on this page lists each one with its status.
Does recording police with sound break wiretap laws?
Wiretap and eavesdropping laws usually cover conversations made with an expectation of privacy, and courts have mostly held that officers speaking in public do not have one. Massachusetts (secret recording), Oregon (four conditions for in-person audio) and Montana (hidden devices) are the states where how you record changes the analysis.
Can I record my own traffic stop?
Courts treat this differently from a bystander. The Fourth Circuit held livestreaming a stop is speech but gave the officer qualified immunity, and Fifth Circuit panels have said a detained person's right to record their own stop is not clearly established. Officers may also order drivers and passengers out of the car.
Can I record ICE or other federal agents?
The same First Amendment case law applies to federal officers. Federal law makes it a crime to forcibly assault, resist, impede or interfere with federal officers (18 U.S.C. 111), and Kansas's 2026 buffer law expressly covers federal officers. Rules on federal property and FAA drone restrictions can also apply. Damages suits against federal officers are limited: the Supreme Court has held there is no Bivens action for First Amendment retaliation (Egbert v. Boule, 2022).
Does this tool store what I select?
We do not store your answers. The checker runs in your browser from a fixed dataset and has no text fields. Your choices appear in the page address so you can share it, and like any page address it may be recorded by site analytics.
Know someone who could use this? Share this free tool: