Is it legal to record phone calls in Indiana?
Yes, generally. Indiana is a one-party consent state: you may record a phone call you take part in without telling the other person, because your own consent satisfies the rule. Recording calls you are not part of is illegal. When the other person may be in an all-party consent state like California or Florida, disclose the recording anyway.
What Indiana law says
Indiana follows one-party consent for phone calls, consistent with the federal Wiretap Act: as long as one participant — and you count — consents, the recording is lawful. The rule covers conversations you participate in; intercepting other people’s calls remains a crime. Bear in mind the rule protects you within Indiana — interstate calls can implicate stricter states’ laws, which is why professionals default to disclosure.
Indiana is a one-party consent state for telephone and electronic communications. It is a Level 5 felony to knowingly or intentionally intercept a telephonic or electronic communication without the consent of at least one party. The statute does not cover ordinary in-person conversations — only communications transmitted electronically — so face-to-face recording falls outside the Wiretap Act unless a separate statute applies.
"A person who knowingly or intentionally intercepts a communication in violation of this article commits unlawful interception, a Level 5 felony." — Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-5(b). Consent is satisfied when the person recording is the sender or receiver of the communication, or when interception is done with a sender's or receiver's consent. — Ind. Code § 35-33.5-2-176 (definition of "interception").
Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) tracks Indiana's one-party consent for electronic communications, so compliant intrastate recording rarely creates separate federal exposure. Indiana expressly exempts interceptions authorized under federal law (§ 35-33.5-5-5(a)). Federal civil remedies under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 remain available alongside Indiana's § 35-33.5-5-4 damages. Federal one-party consent does not help you when calling into stricter states.
For phone calls, texts, and other electronic communications, Indiana requires consent from at least one sender or receiver — and if you are on the call, you count as a party whose consent legalizes the recording. No announcement is required. The Wiretap Act defines interception as recording by someone other than a sender or receiver without consent; when a parent records a child's phone call from the family line, Indiana courts have held the parent acts as the receiver's agent and the recording is not an unlawful interception. Critically, Whitt v. Town of New Carlisle confirms the Act does not reach purely oral, in-person conversations — only electronic communications — so recording a face-to-face chat in a restaurant is not governed by § 35-33.5-5. Separate statutes govern hidden cameras on private property (§ 35-46-8.5-1) and video voyeurism (§ 35-45-4-5).
| Consent rule for phone calls | One-party consent |
| Recording calls you're part of | Allowed — your own consent is sufficient. |
| Calls with people in other states | The stricter state's rule may apply — when in doubt, disclose. |
What breaking the law costs in Indiana
Unlawful interception under § 35-33.5-5-5(b) is a Level 5 felony, punishable by 1 to 6 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. Unlawful use or disclosure of an interception by a criminal-justice employee is also a Level 5 felony under § 35-33.5-5-5(c).
Yes — § 35-33.5-5-4 authorizes civil suits for actual damages, $100 per day of violation or $1,000 (whichever is greater), plus punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs. Dommer v. Dommer addressed whether a spouse recording from the marital home could face civil wiretap liability.
Exceptions worth knowing
- One-party consent: a sender or receiver may record, or anyone may record with a sender's or receiver's consent
- Interceptions authorized under federal law by federal officers (§ 35-33.5-5-5(a))
- The Wiretap Act does not apply to purely in-person oral conversations (Whitt v. Town of New Carlisle)
- Parental consent on behalf of a minor child for phone recordings in limited family-law contexts (Apter v. Ross)
How Indiana courts have ruled
Statutes set the rule; cases show how it plays out when a recording ends up in front of a judge. These are real, decided cases under Indiana law.
What happened: A husband wired hidden recorders to his estranged wife's home phones to capture her calls with third parties; neither the wife nor the people she called consented.
The ruling: The Supreme Court held the Wiretap Act is constitutional and clearly prohibits intentionally wiring a home phone to document a spouse's private calls without any party's knowledge or permission; the State must prove intentional conduct.
What happened: A defendant argued that recording in-person communications at a municipal meeting violated the Indiana Wiretap Act.
The ruling: The court held the Act applies only to electronic communications — the legislature's omission of "oral communications" from the Indiana statute (unlike the federal Wiretap Act) means purely in-person conversations are not covered by § 35-33.5-5.
What happened: A father recorded a phone conversation between his minor daughter and the child's mother on the family answering machine during a custody dispute; the trial court excluded the tape as an illegal wiretap.
The ruling: The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the recording was not an unlawful interception because the father, as custodial parent, had authority to consent on the daughter's behalf and the recording was motivated by concern for the child's welfare.
What happened: A husband recorded his wife's phone calls with friends from their joint residence during marital proceedings; the wife sued for civil damages under § 35-33.5-5-4 and the federal Wiretap Act.
The ruling: The Supreme Court held the husband was not liable under the Indiana civil wiretap provision because the friends — not the wife alone — were the parties whose communications were at issue, and the husband's recording to protect the children fit within lawful authority.
What happened: Illinois prosecuted people for audio-recording police officers in public under an all-party consent statute; ACLU challenged the application to citizen monitoring of public officials.
The ruling: The Seventh Circuit recognized a First Amendment right to record police performing their duties in public, a rule that extends to Indiana as part of the same federal circuit.
Personal calls vs. business calls in Indiana
Recording personal calls
Recording your own phone calls in Indiana is legal without notice — you are a sender or receiver, so § 35-33.5-5 is satisfied. Parents in custody fights have recorded children's calls with the other parent when acting in the child's interest (Apter v. Ross), though Indiana's Parenting Time Guidelines now flag routine recording as unacceptable interference. Do not wire someone else's phone: Lombardo is the template prosecution for a spouse who planted recorders on an ex's landline. In-person arguments at a restaurant are outside the Wiretap Act entirely (Whitt), though other laws may apply if you use hidden cameras on private property.
Recording business calls
Indiana call centers and sales teams can record with only the company side's consent when an employee participates in the call. No beep is required for intrastate Indiana traffic. Because Indiana businesses routinely call customers nationwide, outbound scripts should assume all-party consent for states like Florida and California. Employee monitoring through company phone systems is lawful with policy consent; intercepting personal cell calls made on personal devices without any consenting party is a Level 5 felony.
Calls that cross state lines
Indiana has no landmark appellate decision on which state's law governs interstate calls. When you record from Indiana but the other party is in an all-party state, their law may still apply. The safe practice for any business with multi-state customers is to announce recording at the start of every call.
The safe way to record in Indiana
Whatever the local rule, one habit covers every situation: say the call is being recorded at the start. Consent is then on the recording itself, and cross-border calls stop being a legal puzzle. Callmark can play "This call may be recorded" automatically on your calls, so the disclosure never depends on your memory.
For the full national picture — every all-party state, cross-border rules, and consent mechanics — see our state-by-state consent guide.
Sources and further reading
Statutes, court opinions, and reference guides cited on this page. Laws change — verify current text before relying on it for anything consequential.
- Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-5 — Unlawful interception (Justia)
- Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-4 — Civil remedies (Justia)
- State v. Lombardo, 738 N.E.2d 653 (Ind. 2000) — Justia
- Apter v. Ross, 781 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) — Justia
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press — Indiana recording guide
- Justia 50-State Survey — Recording Phone Calls and Conversations
Common questions
Yes. As a participant in the call, your consent satisfies Indiana’s one-party rule. Disclosure is still wise whenever the other party might be in an all-party consent state.
Courts have applied different states' laws to interstate calls, and you often can't verify where a mobile number is. The practical rule: assume the strictest state applies and disclose the recording.
In most states, continuing a call after a clear "this call may be recorded" announcement is treated as implied consent — the same mechanism customer-service lines rely on.
Yes, if you are a party to the call or have a sender's or receiver's consent. Indiana is a one-party consent state for telephonic and electronic communications under Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5. You do not need to announce the recording, but intercepting a call you are not part of — with no party's consent — is a Level 5 felony.
No. Whitt v. Town of New Carlisle held the Indiana Wiretap Act applies only to electronic communications, not purely oral in-person conversations. Phone calls, texts, and similar transmissions are covered; a face-to-face chat in public is governed by different statutes, if at all.
Apter v. Ross held a father could lawfully record his minor daughter's call with her mother when motivated by the child's welfare. Indiana's Parenting Time Guidelines (2022) now discourage recording a child's communications with the other parent unless absolutely necessary for the child's safety.
Criminal penalties are 1–6 years and up to $10,000 (Level 5 felony). Civilly, § 35-33.5-5-4 allows recovery of actual damages or at least $1,000 ($100 per day), plus punitive damages and attorney fees.
Generally yes when the employer is on the call or has employee consent through a monitoring policy. Secretly intercepting an employee's purely personal calls with no consenting participant violates the Wiretap Act.
Yes, in public while they perform their duties. The Seventh Circuit in ACLU v. Alvarez recognized a First Amendment right to record police in public, which applies in Indiana. That does not authorize recording private phone calls without one-party consent.
Record responsibly in Indiana, automatically.
Built-in disclosure · automatic transcripts and summaries · 200 minutes included
Get Callmark