Minnesota Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Privacy Rules
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 15, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Recording in public is legal in Minnesota. The First Amendment protects the right to photograph, film, and record in streets, parks, and government buildings. Audio recordings of conversations are governed by the one-party consent rule under Minn. Stat. Section 626A.02, which requires consent from only one party to the conversation.
Overview of Public Recording Rights in Minnesota
Minnesota residents enjoy broad rights to record in public spaces. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to photograph, film, and record audio in areas where you have a lawful right to be. This right extends to recording government officials, police officers, public protests, and everyday activities occurring in public view. Note that while a First Amendment right to record police in public is widely recognized, the Eighth Circuit (which covers Minnesota) has not clearly established it for qualified-immunity purposes (Molina v. Book, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023)), which may limit Section 1983 remedies against individual officers.
Minnesota does not have a specific statute that grants or restricts the right to record in public. Instead, public recording rights are governed by a combination of constitutional protections, the state wiretapping statute (Minn. Stat. Section 626A.02), the privacy statute (Minn. Stat. Section 609.746), trespassing laws, and the Open Meeting Law (Minn. Stat. Chapter 13D).
Where You Can Record in Public

Public Streets, Sidewalks, and Parks
You have an unrestricted right to record on public streets, sidewalks, and in public parks. These are traditional public forums where First Amendment protections are at their strongest. You can:
- Film people walking, driving, or going about their daily activities
- Record street performers, public art installations, and events
- Photograph buildings, storefronts, and architecture from public vantage points
- Livestream events to social media platforms
- Use any type of recording device, including phones, cameras, and drones (subject to FAA regulations)
No consent from the people being filmed is required when recording in these public spaces. People who are visible in public places have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their physical presence and activities.
Government Buildings Open to the Public
You can generally record inside government buildings during their public operating hours. This includes:
- City halls and county government centers
- State Capitol and legislative buildings
- Public libraries
- Post offices (in public areas)
- Public university buildings (in common areas)
- Police station lobbies
Some government facilities may have specific policies about recording in certain areas. Security-sensitive areas, courtrooms (subject to judge's rules), and areas containing private data may have restrictions. However, a blanket ban on recording in a government building open to the public would likely face First Amendment challenges.
Public Transportation
Recording on public transportation in Minnesota is generally permitted. Metro Transit and other transit agencies operate in public spaces, and passengers on buses and light rail do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Security cameras already record activity on most public transit vehicles and stations.
Retail Stores and Businesses Open to the Public
Recording in businesses open to the public is more nuanced. While these spaces are accessible to the public, they are private property. The property owner or authorized manager can set rules about recording. Key points:
- You can record in a store unless the owner or manager asks you to stop
- If asked to stop recording and you refuse, you may be asked to leave
- Refusing to leave after being asked constitutes trespassing under Minn. Stat. Section 609.605
- Recordings made before you were asked to stop are legal and yours to keep
- The business cannot demand you delete recordings already made
The Audio Recording Question in Public

One-Party Consent in Public Settings
When your public recording captures conversations, Minnesota's wiretapping law comes into play. Under Minn. Stat. Section 626A.02, the one-party consent rule applies to the audio portion of recordings.
However, the wiretapping statute only protects "oral communications" where the speaker has a reasonable expectation of privacy. In public settings, people generally do not have a reasonable expectation that their conversations are private. This means:
- Conversations held at normal volume in public places are generally not protected by the wiretapping statute
- If you are participating in a conversation in public, you can record it under one-party consent
- Conversations in public that you overhear and record may not be protected by the statute because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy
Conversations in Semi-Private Public Spaces
Some spaces that are technically public may still create privacy expectations for conversations. A quiet corner of a library, a whispered conversation in a restaurant, or a discussion in a private meeting room within a public building may carry a greater expectation of privacy than a conversation on a busy sidewalk.
The test is whether the speaker exhibited a subjective expectation that the conversation was not being intercepted, and whether that expectation was objectively reasonable given the circumstances.
Recording Public Events

Protests and Demonstrations
Minnesota has been a focal point for discussions about recording public protests, particularly after events in Minneapolis in 2020. Your rights when recording protests include:
- Filming from any public vantage point
- Recording police interactions with protesters
- Livestreaming events in real time
- Documenting the use of crowd control measures
- Recording from your own property if protests pass by
You cannot trespass on private property to record a protest, and you must comply with lawful police orders to maintain safe distances. However, police cannot order you to stop recording or confiscate your equipment simply because you are filming a protest.
Concerts, Sporting Events, and Festivals
Public events held in outdoor venues are generally open to recording from public vantage points outside the venue. However, event organizers can restrict recording within their venues through:
- Terms printed on tickets
- Posted signage at entrances
- Announcements at the start of the event
- Venue policies enforced by security staff
These restrictions are based on the organizer's property rights and contractual authority, not on state recording law. Violating a venue's no-recording policy can result in ejection from the event.
Parades and Public Celebrations
Public parades, holiday celebrations, and community events taking place on public streets and in public parks can be freely recorded. No permission is needed from event organizers, participants, or spectators.
Recording Government Meetings
Minnesota Open Meeting Law
Minnesota's Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. Chapter 13D, requires most meetings of public bodies to be open to the public. This includes the right to attend, observe, and record these meetings. Public bodies covered by the law include:
- City councils and town boards
- County boards of commissioners
- School boards
- State agency boards and commissions
- Planning commissions and zoning boards
- Park boards and library boards
- Hospital district boards
Your Right to Record Government Meetings
Under the Open Meeting Law, you can:
- Bring cameras, phones, and recording equipment to open meetings
- Record audio and video of the proceedings
- Livestream meetings to online platforms
- Photograph documents displayed during the meeting
A public body cannot prohibit recording of an open meeting. They may establish reasonable rules about the placement of recording equipment to avoid disrupting proceedings (for example, requiring cameras to be stationary rather than moving around the room), but they cannot ban recording outright.
Closed Meetings
The Open Meeting Law allows public bodies to close meetings for specific purposes, such as discussing pending litigation, labor negotiations, or certain personnel matters. Recording is generally not permitted during properly closed sessions. However, the decision to close a meeting must be made openly, and the public body must state the grounds for closing the meeting on the record.
Recording on Private Property Open to the Public
The Property Owner's Authority
Private property owners in Minnesota have the right to set rules about recording on their premises, even when the property is open to the public. Businesses like restaurants, shopping malls, stores, and offices can:
- Post signs prohibiting photography or recording
- Ask customers or visitors to stop recording
- Request that recording individuals leave the premises
- Call police to enforce trespassing laws if someone refuses to leave
However, property owners cannot:
- Physically assault someone for recording
- Confiscate recording equipment
- Demand deletion of recordings already made
- Destroy recording equipment
When Trespassing Laws Apply
If you are asked to leave private property because of your recording activity and you refuse, you may face trespassing charges under Minn. Stat. Section 609.605. Misdemeanor trespass carries a penalty of up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. The recordings you made before being asked to leave remain legal and belong to you.
Privacy Limits on Public Recording
Surreptitious Surveillance in Private Areas
Even within otherwise public buildings, there are areas where people retain a reasonable expectation of privacy. Minn. Stat. Section 609.746 prohibits surreptitious recording in:
- Public restrooms and bathrooms
- Changing rooms and fitting rooms in retail stores
- Locker rooms at gyms, pools, and recreational facilities
- Shower facilities
- Any area where a person is in a state of undress and has a reasonable expectation of privacy
Recording in these locations is a gross misdemeanor for a first offense (up to 1 year in jail and $3,000 fine) and a felony for repeat offenses or offenses involving minors (up to 2 years and $5,000 fine).
Intimate Images and Upskirt Photography
Minnesota law specifically addresses surreptitious photography and recording aimed at capturing intimate images. Recording under someone's clothing or in a manner designed to capture private body parts without consent is illegal, even in public spaces. These offenses are prosecuted under the interference with privacy statute and related provisions.
Drone Recording
Drone use for aerial recording in Minnesota is subject to both state law and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. While drones can be used for photography and videography in public airspace, operators must:
- Follow FAA rules for recreational or commercial drone use
- Not fly over crowds or near airports without authorization
- Avoid using drones to surveil private property in a manner that violates privacy expectations
- Register drones with the FAA if they weigh more than 0.55 pounds
Minnesota does not have a comprehensive state drone privacy law, but existing privacy statutes like Section 609.746 apply to drone-based recording that captures private activities.
Using Public Recordings as Evidence
Admissibility in Court
Recordings made in public spaces are generally admissible in Minnesota courts when properly authenticated under Minnesota Rules of Evidence, Rule 901. Public recordings are commonly used as evidence in:
- Personal injury and accident cases
- Criminal prosecutions and defense
- Civil rights lawsuits
- Property disputes
- Insurance claims
- Employment disputes involving off-site conduct
Social Media Posts as Evidence
Public social media posts containing recordings made in Minnesota can also be used as evidence. Courts treat publicly shared recordings and posts as having no expectation of privacy. Both prosecutors and civil litigants regularly introduce social media content as evidence in Minnesota courts.
Penalties for Illegal Recording in Otherwise Public Spaces
| Statute | Offense | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 609.746 | Surreptitious surveillance in private area | Gross misdemeanor (first) | 1 year / $3,000 |
| Section 609.746 | Repeat offense or minor victim | Felony | 2 years / $5,000 |
| Section 626A.02 | Illegal audio interception | Felony | 5 years / $20,000 |
| Section 609.605 | Trespass (refusing to leave) | Misdemeanor | 90 days / $1,000 |
More Minnesota Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
Back to Minnesota Recording Laws
More Minnesota Recording Topics
More Minnesota Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I film people in public in Minnesota without their consent?
Yes. People in public spaces generally have no reasonable expectation of privacy. You can record video and take photographs of people on public streets, sidewalks, parks, and other public areas without their consent. The First Amendment protects this right.
Can I record a government meeting in Minnesota?
Yes. Minnesota's Open Meeting Law (Chapter 13D) requires most government meetings to be open to the public, including the right to record them. Public bodies cannot prohibit recording of open meetings, though they may set reasonable rules about equipment placement.
Can a store owner tell me to stop recording in Minnesota?
Yes. While recording in a public-access business is not illegal, the property owner can ask you to stop recording and ask you to leave if you refuse. Staying after being asked to leave can result in trespassing charges under Minn. Stat. Section 609.605. However, the owner cannot demand you delete recordings already made.
Can I livestream in public in Minnesota?
Yes. Livestreaming in public spaces is protected by the First Amendment. You can livestream on public streets, at public events, during protests, and at government meetings. The same rules that apply to recording also apply to livestreaming.
Is it legal to record in a public restroom in Minnesota?
No. Despite being in a public building, restrooms are areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Recording in a public restroom violates Minn. Stat. Section 609.746 and is a gross misdemeanor for a first offense, carrying up to 1 year in jail and a $3,000 fine.
Updates
Corrected the Eighth Circuit qualified-immunity citation (now Molina v. Book, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023), replacing an unrelated case), corrected the UpdatesLog entry to match, and fixed a dead Minnesota Rules of Evidence Rule 901 citation link.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Added Eighth Circuit qualified-immunity caveat: right to record police not yet clearly established per Molina v. Book, 59 F.4th 334 (8th Cir. 2023). (2026-08-15 correction: the prior version of this note cited Ness v. City of Bloomington, which does not address recording police, and miscited Robbins v. Becker and Chestnut v. Wallace.)
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 626A: WIRE, ELECTRONIC, OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS; INTERCEPTION
§ 626A.02INTERCEPTION AND DISCLOSURE OF WIRE, ELECTRONIC, OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS PROHIBITEDIn forcecited in 18 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Offenses. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who: (1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, electronic, or oral communication; (2) intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when: (i) such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or (ii) such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; (3) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic, or oral communication in violation of this subdivision; or (4) intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 20 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. (1995) applied the 626A.02 party exemption, finding a secret recording made for commercial newsgathering was not intercepted for the purpose of a tortious act. State v. Page (1986) held an officer's use of a regular telephone extension in the ordinary course of duty was not an interception.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Copeland v. Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1995, 526 N.W.2d 402)“…l to the federal wiretapping statutes. Compare Minn.Stat. § 626A.02, subd. 1 (1992), with 18…”
- State v. Page (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1986, 386 N.W.2d 330)“…g rule applies. See 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (1982); Minn.Stat. § 626A.02 (1984). The federal rule makes it unlaw…”
- State v. Olkon (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1980, 299 N.W.2d 89)✓An undercover deputy posing as an injury client taped his calls and office meetings with a lawyer later convicted of attempted theft by swindle; the court rejected suppression, holding one party's consent meant no warrant was needed, citing the statute's consent exception.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2025, Minnesota AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Minnesota Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 609: CRIMINAL CODE
§ 609.605TRESPASSIn force
Subdivision 1. Misdemeanor. (a) The following terms have the meanings given them for purposes of this section. (1) "Premises" means real property and any appurtenant building or structure. (2) "Dwelling" means the building or part of a building used by an individual as a place of residence on either a full-time or a part-time basis. A dwelling may be part of a multidwelling or multipurpose building, or a manufactured home as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 16. (3) "Construction site" means the site of the construction, alteration, painting, or repair of a building or structure. (4) "Owner or lawful possessor," as used in paragraph (b), clause (9), means the person on whose behalf a building or dwelling is being constructed, altered, painted, or repaired and the general contractor or subcontractor engaged in that work. (5) "Posted," as used: (i) in paragraph (b), clause (4), means the placement of a sign at least 8-1/2 inches by 11 inches in a conspicuous place on the exterior of the building, or in a conspicuous place within the property on which the building is located.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 54 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Hoyt (Supreme Court of Minnesota 1981, 304 N.W.2d 884)“…s upon the premises of St. Mary’s Rehabilitation Center. 1 Minn.Stat. § 609.605(5) (1980). Prior to trial an evidenti…”
- State v. Occhino (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1997, 572 N.W.2d 316)“…another after being told to depart by the lawful possessor. Minn.Stat. § 609.605, subd. 1(b)(3) (1996). The recor…”
- State v. Roberts (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 1984, 350 N.W.2d 448)“…trespass, entering a dwelling without consent of the owner, Minn.Stat. § 609.605(6) (1982), but he contends that evidenc…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 609.746INTERFERENCE WITH PRIVACYIn forcecited in 17 of our articles
Subdivision 1. Surreptitious intrusion; observation device. (a) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who: (1) enters upon another's property; (2) surreptitiously gazes, stares, or peeps in the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling of another; and (3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household. (b) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who: (1) enters upon another's property; (2) surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or any other aperture of a house or place of dwelling of another; and (3) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of a member of the household.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at revisor.mn.gov
Cited in 15 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Pakhnyuk (2019) held the intent to intrude on privacy in section 609.746, subd. 1(a) attaches only to the peeping, not to entering the property. State v. Ulmer (2006) applied subd. 1(c) to a public restroom, holding the space above a urinal partition is an aperture and the shielded space is private.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Pakhnyuk (Supreme Court of Minnesota 2019, 926 N.W.2d 914)✓A houseguest sat on the roof and watched a 14-year-old undressing through a bedroom window; the Minnesota Supreme Court held the intent to intrude element attaches only to the peeping clause, not to entering the property, and affirmed the conviction.
- State v. Ulmer (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2006, 719 N.W.2d 213)✓A man leaned over a urinal partition in a store restroom to watch a seven-year-old boy urinate; the court of appeals held a user has an expectation of privacy in that partitioned space and that the gap above the partition is an aperture under the statute.
- State v. Morris (Court of Appeals of Minnesota 2002, 644 N.W.2d 114)✓A man carried a camera concealed in a bag and filmed up a store clerk's skirt; the court of appeals held the area under a skirt is a place with an expectation of privacy and the camera itself an aperture, and rejected the commercial-establishment exemption.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Minnesota Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Privacy, and Rights, Minnesota Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Provider Rules, Minnesota School Recording Laws: Classrooms, IEP Meetings, and Campus Surveillance
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 422 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D: OPEN MEETING LAW § 13D.001 (DEFINITION)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Minn. Stat. Section 626A.02(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. Section 609.746 - Interference with Privacy(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. Chapter 13D - Open Meeting Law(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Minn. Stat. Section 609.605 - Trespass(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- Minnesota Rules of Evidence Rule 901(revisor.mn.gov).gov
- FAA Drone Rules(faa.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. Section 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)