South Dakota
South Dakota Audio Recording Laws
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. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

South Dakota is a one-party consent state for audio recording under SDCL 23A-35A-20, meaning you can legally record any phone call or conversation you participate in without notifying the other parties.
South Dakota is a one-party consent state for audio recording. Under SDCL 23A-35A-20, you can legally record any phone call, in-person conversation, or electronic communication you participate in without notifying or getting permission from other participants. The law requires only that the person doing the recording is a party to the communication or that one party has given prior consent.
This guide covers everything you need to know about audio recording laws in South Dakota, including when you can record, what happens when you call someone in another state, the penalties for violations, and how recordings are treated as evidence.
How South Dakota's One-Party Consent Law Works
The Statutory Framework
South Dakota's audio recording rules are found in Chapter 23A-35A of the South Dakota Codified Laws, titled "Interception of Wire, Electronic, or Oral Communications." The key statute is SDCL 23A-35A-20.
Under this statute, a person who is not a sender or receiver of a communication may not intentionally record that communication without the consent of either a sender or receiver. Likewise, a person who is not present during an in-person conversation may not intentionally record it without the consent of at least one participant.
If you are a party to the conversation, your own consent satisfies the requirement. The South Dakota Supreme Court has affirmed that one party's consent to recording removes the conversation from the type of interception prohibited under the wiretapping statute.
This statute is current through the 2025 South Dakota legislative session, with the 2026 session introducing new protections around deepfake images (SB 41) but no changes to the core audio recording consent provisions.
What "One-Party Consent" Means in Practice
One-party consent means that exactly one person involved in the communication must know about and agree to the recording. That person is typically you, the one pressing the record button. You do not need to announce "this call is being recorded." You do not need a verbal or written agreement from the other parties.
Here are common scenarios where one-party consent protects you:
- Recording a phone call you are on. Whether you use a landline, cell phone, or VoIP service like Zoom, Teams, or Google Meet, you can record the audio without telling the other person.
- Recording an in-person conversation you participate in. If you are having a face-to-face discussion, you can use your phone or a dedicated voice recorder to capture it.
- Authorizing someone else to record on your behalf. If you ask a friend to record a meeting you will attend, that recording is lawful because you, a party to the conversation, gave prior consent.
What One-Party Consent Does NOT Allow
The one-party consent exception has clear boundaries. You cannot:
- Record a conversation you are not part of and have no party's consent for. Placing a hidden recorder in a room to capture other people's private conversations without any participant's knowledge is illegal wiretapping.
- Intercept communications between two other people. Tapping a phone line or using software to capture someone else's calls without their knowledge violates the statute.
- Use an eavesdropping device to overhear jury deliberations. SDCL 23A-35A-20 specifically prohibits intercepting jury deliberations.
Types of Audio Communications Covered

Wire Communications
Wire communications include traditional telephone calls, cell phone calls, and any communication that travels over a wire, cable, or similar connection at some point during transmission. South Dakota's one-party consent rule under SDCL 23A-35A-20 covers all wire communications.
Oral Communications
Oral communications are face-to-face, spoken conversations where one or more parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Under SDCL 23A-35A-20, it is unlawful to intercept oral communications without the consent of at least one participant. If you are present and participating, your own consent satisfies the statute.
Conversations in public places where anyone could overhear them generally carry no expectation of privacy and may be recorded without any party's consent.
Electronic Communications
Electronic communications include text messages, emails, instant messages, and data transmissions. South Dakota's wiretapping statute covers the interception of electronic communications. The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. 2511) provides a parallel framework that also applies in South Dakota.
Recording Phone Calls in South Dakota

Personal Phone Calls
You can record any personal phone call you participate in under South Dakota's one-party consent rule. This applies to:
- Cell phone calls
- Landline calls
- VoIP calls through Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, or similar platforms
- Video call audio (FaceTime, WhatsApp video, etc.)
- Calls made through messaging apps like Signal or Telegram
You do not need to play a beep tone, announce the recording, or get permission. Simply being a party to the call satisfies the consent requirement.
Business Phone Calls
South Dakota businesses can record calls for quality assurance, training, compliance, and dispute resolution. An employee who participates in the call provides the necessary one-party consent. Many businesses still announce recording as a best practice, using phrases like "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes."
Federal regulations under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and FCC regulations also apply to business call recording, particularly for telemarketing calls and calls to consumers.
Interstate Phone Calls
When you are in South Dakota calling someone in another state, the recording laws of both states may apply. If the other person is in a two-party consent state, the stricter law typically controls.
States requiring all-party consent:
- California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington
- Nevada, for phone calls specifically
- Montana, where MCA 45-8-213 requires that all parties know a conversation is being recorded, subject to narrow notice-based exceptions
- Connecticut's criminal eavesdropping law is one-party consent; all-party consent there is a civil-liability rule only, under C.G.S. 52-570d
South Dakota does not border any two-party consent states directly, but Montana is nearby. If you regularly record calls with people in two-party consent states, the safest approach is to inform all parties or get explicit consent before recording.
Recording In-Person Conversations

When Audio Recording Is Legal
You can record in-person conversations in South Dakota when:
- You are a direct participant in the conversation
- You are in a public place where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists
- One of the parties to the conversation has given you prior consent to record
Public spaces like sidewalks, parks, government buildings, retail stores, and restaurants generally carry no expectation of privacy for conversations held at normal volume.
When Audio Recording Is Illegal
Recording becomes illegal when:
- You are not a party to the conversation and have no participant's consent
- You are planting a hidden device and leaving the room to capture others' conversations
- You are intercepting jury deliberations
- You are using intercepted communications for blackmail or extortion
Recording in Your Own Home
You can record conversations in your own home if you are participating. However, you cannot:
- Plant a hidden recorder and leave it to capture conversations between guests you are not part of
- Record guests in areas where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as bathrooms or guest bedrooms
- Record intimate activities without consent from all participants
Audio Recording and South Dakota's Hidden Camera Law
South Dakota's hidden camera statute SDCL 22-21-1 creates additional restrictions that affect audio recording. This law prohibits installing or using any device to observe, photograph, or record a person in a private place without their consent. Because many hidden cameras also capture audio, this statute effectively creates a dual layer of protection.
If you install a device that records both video and audio in a private place without consent, you could face charges under both SDCL 22-21-1 (Class 1 misdemeanor) and SDCL 23A-35A-20 (Class 5 felony) if you are not a party to any conversation recorded.
The use of drones with audio recording capability to capture conversations in private places is also covered by SDCL 22-21-1.
Penalties for Illegal Audio Recording in South Dakota
Criminal Penalties
Illegal interception of audio communications is a serious offense in South Dakota:
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercepting communications (SDCL 23A-35A-20) | Class 5 Felony | 5 years | $10,000 |
| Hidden camera/drone audio in private place (SDCL 22-21-1) | Class 1 Misdemeanor | 1 year | $2,000 |
SDCL 23A-35A-20 criminalizes only the act of intercepting, overhearing, or recording a communication; South Dakota has no statute that separately criminalizes disclosing or using a recording once it exists. Class 5 felonies in South Dakota are serious criminal offenses. A conviction carries a permanent criminal record and potential collateral consequences including loss of professional licenses and firearm rights.
No Statutory Civil Remedy for Wiretapping
Unlike many other states, South Dakota does not authorize civil lawsuits specifically for violations of its wiretapping statute (Chapter 23A-35A). Victims of illegal wiretapping cannot sue for damages under this statute.
However, victims may still have legal options. Common law claims such as invasion of privacy (see Gantvoort v. Ranschau, 2022 S.D. 22, decided April 6, 2022), intentional infliction of emotional distress, or other tort claims may be available depending on the circumstances. The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2520) also provides a civil remedy allowing recovery of actual damages, statutory damages of $10,000 per violation (whichever is greater), punitive damages, and attorney fees.
Using Audio Recordings as Evidence in South Dakota
Admissibility Standards
Recordings made lawfully under South Dakota's one-party consent law are generally admissible as evidence in both criminal and civil courts. The South Dakota Supreme Court has recognized that recordings made with one party's consent can be used in legal proceedings. See State v. Braddock, 452 N.W.2d 785 (S.D. 1990). Courts typically consider:
- Authentication: Can you prove the recording is genuine and unaltered?
- Relevance: Does the recording relate to an issue in the case?
- Hearsay rules: Some statements may be excluded under the South Dakota Rules of Evidence
- Prejudicial vs. probative value: Does the recording's value outweigh any unfair prejudice?
Best Practices for Preserving Audio Recordings
To maximize the evidentiary value of your audio recordings:
- Use a reliable recording device or app. Smartphone voice memo apps and dedicated digital recorders both work well.
- Do not edit the recording. Preserve the original file in its entirety.
- Back up the recording immediately. Save copies to cloud storage and a separate device.
- Note the date, time, location, and participants. Write this information down as soon as possible after recording.
- Store the recording securely. Protect it from accidental deletion or unauthorized access.
Illegally Obtained Recordings
Recordings made in violation of South Dakota's wiretapping law are generally inadmissible in court. Using an illegally obtained recording can also expose you to criminal prosecution and civil liability, regardless of what the recording reveals.
Common Audio Recording Scenarios in South Dakota
Can I Record a Conversation With My Landlord?
Yes. If you are participating in a face-to-face or phone conversation with your landlord, South Dakota's one-party consent law permits you to record the audio. This is useful for documenting verbal agreements about repairs, disputes about lease terms, or instances of harassment.
Can I Record My Doctor?
Yes. As a participant in the conversation, you can audio record your medical appointment. Many patients find this helpful for remembering complex treatment instructions or documenting informed consent discussions.
Can I Record My Boss at Work?
Yes. Under one-party consent, you can record workplace conversations you participate in, including meetings with your supervisor, HR representatives, or coworkers. Be aware that employer policies may prohibit recording, and violating those policies could result in disciplinary action or termination even though the recording itself is legal.
Can I Record a Government Official?
Yes. You can audio record conversations with government employees you participate in. South Dakota's Open Meetings Law (SDCL 1-25) also permits recording of public government meetings. Under SDCL 1-25-11, no public body may prevent a person from recording a public meeting as long as the recording is reasonable, obvious, and not disruptive.
Can I Record My Ex-Spouse or Co-Parent?
Yes, during conversations you are part of. This is common in custody disputes. However, do not record your children's private conversations without being present, and do not use children to secretly record the other parent. South Dakota family courts will consider the circumstances under which recordings were made.
More South Dakota 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 South Dakota Recording Laws
More South Dakota Recording Topics
More South Dakota Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to audio record a conversation in South Dakota without the other person knowing?
Yes. South Dakota is a one-party consent state under SDCL 23A-35A-20. As long as you are a participant in the conversation, you can record the audio without telling or getting permission from other parties. You cannot record conversations you are not part of.
Can I record a phone call in South Dakota?
Yes. You can record any phone call you participate in, including landline, cell phone, and VoIP calls. You do not need to announce the recording or get the other person's permission. For interstate calls to two-party consent states, the stricter law typically applies.
What is the penalty for illegal audio recording in South Dakota?
Illegal interception of communications is a Class 5 felony under SDCL 23A-35A-20, carrying up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Using hidden cameras or drones with audio capability in private places is a separate Class 1 misdemeanor under SDCL 22-21-1.
Can I sue someone for illegally recording me in South Dakota?
South Dakota does not provide a specific civil remedy under its wiretapping statute. However, you may pursue common law claims such as invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress. Federal wiretap law (18 U.S.C. 2520) also provides a civil remedy with statutory damages of at least $10,000 per violation.
Can audio recordings be used as evidence in South Dakota courts?
Yes. Audio recordings made lawfully under South Dakota's one-party consent law are generally admissible in both criminal and civil cases. The recording must be authenticated as genuine and unaltered. Illegally obtained recordings are typically inadmissible and could result in criminal charges against the person who made them.
Updates
Removed two fabricated criminal offenses (disclosing and using an intercepted communication) that SDCL 23A-35A-20 does not actually create, and clarified that Connecticut's all-party phone-call rule is civil-only while its criminal wiretap law is one-party, and that Montana's all-party rule applies only to electronic communications and not in-person conversations.
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
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.
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 23A-35A: INTERCEPTION OF WIRE, ELECTRONIC, OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
§ 23A-35A-20Overhearing or recording communications, conversations, or jury deliberations by means of eavesdropping device as felony.In forcecited in 17 of our articles
Except as provided in § 23A-35A-21, a person is guilty of a Class 5 felony who is not: (1) A sender or receiver of a communication who intentionally and by means of an eavesdropping device overhears or records a communication, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures, or permits another to overhear or record, without the consent of either a sender or receiver of the communication; (2) A person present during a conversation or discussion who intentionally and by means of an eavesdropping device overhears or records the conversation or discussion, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures, or permits another to overhear or record, without the consent of a party to the conversation or discussion; or (3) A member of a jury who intentionally records or listens to by means of an eavesdropping device the deliberations of the jury or aids, authorizes, employs, procures, or permits another to record or listen.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Woods (South Dakota Supreme Court 1985, 361 N.W.2d 620)“…ent fails. We next address the State’s argument that SDCL 23A-35A-20(2) exempts one party consent recordings…”
- State v. Braddock (South Dakota Supreme Court 1990, 452 N.W.2d 785)“…nsent recordings without prior court authorization” because SDCL 23A-35A-20 exempts from criminal liability a perso…”
- Gantvoort v. Ranschau (South Dakota Supreme Court 2022, 2022 S.D. 22)“…ff when no noise was detected in the room. 3. SDCL 23A-35A-20(1)–(2), which criminalizes recordings m…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 1-25: MEETINGS OF PUBLIC AGENCIES
§ 1-25-11Recording of open official meeting to be permitted.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
No public body may prevent a person from recording, through audio or video technology, an official meeting as long as the recording is reasonable, obvious, and not disruptive. This section does not apply to meetings closed to the public pursuant to specific law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
South Dakota Codified Laws, Chapter 22-21: INVASIONS OF PRIVACY
§ 22-21-1Eavesdropping--Privacy--Misdemeanor.In forcecited in 14 of our articles
No person may, except as authorized by law: (1) Trespass on property with intent to subject anyone to eavesdropping or other surveillance in a private place; or (2) Install in any private place, without the consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy there, any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events in such place, or uses any such unauthorized installation. A person who violates this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Subdivision (2) does not apply to law enforcement officers, or to those acting under the direction of a law enforcement officer, while engaged in the performance of the officer's lawful duties.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at sdlegislature.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Olson (South Dakota Supreme Court 1981, 305 N.W.2d 852)“…9,1980, appellant was arraigned on four counts of violating SDCL 22-21-1(1) 1 and one count of viol…”
- State v. Reif (South Dakota Supreme Court 1992, 490 N.W.2d 511)“…d to "reasonably satisfy" the court that appellant violated SDCL 22-21-1(1) and that these activities were suffi…”
- Gantvoort v. Ranschau (South Dakota Supreme Court 2022, 2022 S.D. 22)“…Further, placing such a device is a class one misdemeanor. SDCL 22-21-1(2), provides in part that:…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 418 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.
§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 115 of our articles
Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 860 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walker v. Darby (1990) held a 2520 plaintiff need not prove the contents of intercepted conversations, only interception and a justified expectation against it. Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) barred 2520 damages against defendants who took no part in the interception, obtained the tape lawfully, and disclosed a matter of public concern.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573)✓A postal letter carrier said three supervisors wired an intercom near his workstation to listen in. Reversing summary judgment, the Eleventh Circuit held a section 2520 plaintiff can show interception without proving the contents of specific conversations.
- Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41)“…disclosure, or use is entitled to recover civil damages, 18 U. S. C. § 2520 . Title III also bars the use as eviden…”
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)“…7 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(4), or alternatively, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (a), or alternatively, for violations o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- SDCL 23A-35A-20 -- Overhearing or Recording Communications by Means of Eavesdropping Device(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL Chapter 23A-35A -- Interception of Wire, Electronic, or Oral Communications(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL 22-21-1 -- Trespassing With Intent to Eavesdrop; Hidden Cameras and Drones(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- SDCL 1-25-11 -- Recording of Open Official Meeting to Be Permitted(sdlegislature.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Federal Wiretap Act: Interception and Disclosure of Communications(uscode.house.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2520 -- Recovery of Civil Damages for Federal Wiretap Violations(uscode.house.gov).gov
- FCC Guide on Recording Telephone Conversations(fcc.gov).gov
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press -- South Dakota Recording Guide(rcfp.org)