Recording Law for Family Law in Indiana

Indiana lets you record any phone call, text message, email, or other electronic communication you’re part of without the other person’s consent. Indiana’s wiretap law only covers what it calls “electronic communications,” which it defines at Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-110 as anything sent by wire, radio, or an electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system — like a cell phone call, VoIP call, or text. The law makes it illegal to “intercept” these communications without the sender’s or receiver’s consent under Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-176, but a participant in the communication isn’t intercepting it at all. So if you’re on the call or in the text chain, you can record it on your end without the other person knowing. The law classifies unlawful interception as a Level 5 felony under Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-5 and gives the injured party a private right of action with damages of the greater of actual damages, $100 per day for each day of violation, or $1,000, plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney’s fees, subject to a two-year statute of limitations and a good-faith-warrant defense.

Indiana has no law that restricts recording an in-person conversation, no matter where it happens. The wiretap statute doesn’t cover ordinary speech because it’s not transmitted by wire, radio, or an electromagnetic system. That means you can record a face-to-face argument, a heated discussion in a parking lot, or a tense exchange during a custody drop-off without the other person’s consent. Indiana courts have not squarely addressed whether a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy exception applies to public recording, but the statute’s text makes that analysis largely unnecessary for open, in-public recording. One non-precedential Indiana Court of Appeals decision supports this reading: Whitt v. Town of New Carlisle, No. 20A-CT-2279, 2021 WL 2010143, at *3 (Ind. Ct. App. May 20, 2021).

Recording inside your own home is not treated differently under Indiana law. The state’s surveillance statute at Ind. Code § 35-46-8.5-1 only bans knowingly or intentionally placing a camera or electronic surveillance equipment that records images or data of any kind while unattended on the private property of another person without the consent of the owner or tenant, a Class A misdemeanor (Level 6 felony with certain priors or if the actor is subject of a protective order). If you’re present and recording with your phone or a body camera, that’s allowed. There’s no heightened consent requirement specific to in-home recording under Indiana law for this use case.

You have a First Amendment right to record police officers performing their duties in public, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which controls on this point in Indiana. Indiana also passed a law at Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-14 making it a Class C misdemeanor to knowingly or intentionally approach within 25 feet of a law enforcement officer lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer’s duties after the officer has ordered the person to stop approaching, effective July 1, 2023. That law is currently preliminarily enjoined on Fourteenth Amendment vagueness grounds in Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Rokita, No. 24-2927 (7th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025), with the remand still pending as of spring 2026. So right now, recording police from more than a short distance away is on solid First Amendment footing in the Seventh Circuit, but the 25-foot statute remains nominally in effect while its enforceability is in active, unsettled litigation.

Recording video without audio is not restricted in Indiana. The wiretap law at Ind. Code § 35-33.5 only covers interception of electronic communications, which requires audio capture from a transmission by wire, radio, or an electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system. The surveillance statute at Ind. Code § 35-46-8.5-1 only bans unattended cameras left on someone else’s private property without consent. A body camera, phone, or other device recording video while you’re present is fine, whether you’re at home, in public, or anywhere else. No Indiana appellate or supreme court decision was found squarely addressing whether a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy exception applies to public recording, but the statutory text strongly supports that it’s simply out of scope for the wiretap statute.

If you unlawfully intercept an electronic communication under Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-5, you commit a Level 5 felony. The same statute provides a private right of action for the injured party, who may recover the greater of actual damages, $100 per day for each day of violation, or $1,000, plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney’s fees, subject to a two-year statute of limitations and a good-faith-warrant defense. Separately, Ind. Code § 35-46-8.5-1 criminalizes knowingly or intentionally placing unattended cameras on another person’s private property without consent, a Class A misdemeanor (Level 6 felony with certain priors or if the actor is subject of a protective order). Indiana has no separate, generally-applicable eavesdropping statute reaching ordinary face-to-face or in-person oral conversations, so recording those does not violate the wiretap statute.

Imagine you’re picking up your child for a scheduled visit and the other parent starts yelling and threatening to call the police. You start recording on your phone. Under Indiana law, that recording is legal because you’re part of the conversation and the law doesn’t require you to tell the other person. If the exchange happens in your home, the same rule applies. If it happens in a public park, you’re still allowed to record. The only limits would come from other rules not tied to recording, like trespassing or violating a no-contact order.

Even though Indiana’s one-party consent law allows recording without telling the other person, Indiana lawyers are subject to ethics rules that are stricter. The Indiana State Bar Association’s Legal Ethics Committee concluded in Opinion No. 1 of 2000 that it is unethical for an attorney to secretly record another attorney in a pending legal matter without informing them first, regardless of whether the recording is legal under state law. The opinion reasoned that undisclosed recording is fundamentally deceitful and dishonest, undermining the candor attorneys need in off-the-record settlement and plea discussions. The recorded attorney in that case was counsel for the employer of a potential witness, not opposing counsel in the malpractice suit itself. The opinion is advisory only and has not been superseded or reaffirmed since 2000.