Recording Law for Phone & Video Calls in Indiana

Indiana lets you record a phone call, video call (Zoom, FaceTime, Teams, etc.), text message, or any other electronic communication as long as at least one person taking part in the call knows it’s being recorded. Indiana’s wiretap law, Article 35-33.5 of the criminal code, covers only the “interception” of an “electronic communication” sent by wire, radio, or an electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system. A call between two people fits that definition, so the law treats it like a phone call under federal wiretap rules. Only one side needs to agree—if you’re on the call, you can record it without telling the other person. Indiana’s criminal code calls unlawful interception a Level 5 felony under Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-5, but the same statute also lets someone whose call was recorded sue for actual damages, the greater of $100 per day or $1,000, plus punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Indiana has no separate rule that makes recording inside your own home riskier than anywhere else; the private-property camera statute only criminalizes unattended cameras left on someone else’s property without consent under Ind. Code § 35-46-8.5-1.

Indiana’s wiretap law does not cover ordinary face-to-face speech at all. The statute defines an “electronic communication” at Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-110 as “any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, oral communication, digital information, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, a radio, or an electromagnetic, a photoelectronic, or a photo-optical system.” An unassisted conversation between two people in the same room is not transmitted by any of those means, so it falls outside the law. Indiana courts have not squarely decided whether a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test applies to public recording, but the statute’s text is clear: in-person speech isn’t an “electronic communication” and therefore isn’t “intercepted” by the wiretap law. State guidance notes this point is not directly addressed by appellate decisions, citing Whitt v. Town of New Carlisle, No. 20A-CT-2279, 2021 WL 2010143 (Ind. Ct. App. May 20, 2021) (non-precedential, persuasive only). If you’re recording a loud argument in a park you’re on solid ground, but if you’re using a parabolic microphone to eavesdrop on a hushed conversation, a lawyer can tell you how that fact pattern plays out.

If your device records only video and no audio, Indiana law does not restrict it. The wiretap statute covers only the “interception” of an “electronic communication,” which requires audio or data transmitted by wire, radio, or an electromagnetic system. A silent video recording made with a body camera, phone, or other device is not covered because it is not an interception of an electronic communication. Indiana also has a separate law against unattended cameras on someone else’s property, Ind. Code § 35-46-8.5-1, but it applies only to covert or left-behind equipment placed on another person’s private property without consent, not to a person wearing a live camera in public or at home.

In 2023 Indiana enacted Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-14, a Class C misdemeanor for knowingly or intentionally approaching within 25 feet of a law-enforcement officer lawfully engaged in the execution of duties after the officer ordered the person to stop. A federal appeals court blocked enforcement of that law on vagueness grounds in August 2025 in Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Rokita, No. 24-2927 (7th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025), and the case is still on remand as of spring 2026. Until the litigation ends, treat the 25-foot rule as not enforceable against recording in public, but do not assume it is permanently dead. A Seventh Circuit decision from 2012, ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012), already protects your right to record police performing their duties in public, so you can record from more than 25 feet away without worry. Indiana also enacted a second buffer law in 2025, Ind. Code § 35-44.1-2-15, which conditions a stop-approaching order on the officer’s reasonable belief the person’s presence will interfere with duties; this statute remains currently in effect and is not covered by the preliminary injunction. If you plan to record closer than 25 feet, pause and consider the current injunction—this is an unsettled area.

Recording a phone call or video call without at least one participant’s consent can be a Level 5 felony under Indiana’s wiretap law, Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-5. The same statute, Ind. Code § 35-33.5-5-4, also lets the person whose call was recorded sue for actual damages, the greater of $100 per day or $1,000, plus punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. Indiana’s wiretap statute does not create a separate “eavesdropping” crime for in-person conversations, so recording those is not a wiretap offense. Indiana’s private-property camera law, Ind. Code § 35-46-8.5-1, makes it a Class A misdemeanor (Level 6 felony with certain priors or if the actor is subject of a protective order) to leave an unattended camera on someone else’s property without consent, but it does not restrict a person wearing a live camera at home or in public.

Indiana’s biometric data rules are governed by the Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act (ICDPA), effective January 1, 2026. The law treats biometric data as a subcategory of sensitive data requiring opt-in consent. The statute defines biometric data at Ind. Code § 24-15-2-4 to include voiceprints and other unique biological patterns, but explicitly excludes raw audio or video recordings themselves. The law only applies to controllers processing personal data of at least 100,000 Indiana consumers annually, or 25,000 consumers with more than 50% revenue from data sales. Controllers must obtain clear, affirmative consent before processing sensitive data such as voiceprints. Enforcement is handled exclusively by the Attorney General, with a mandatory 30-day cure period before suit and civil penalties capped at $7,500 per violation. There is no private right of action under the ICDPA.

The Indiana State Bar Association Legal Ethics Committee issued Opinion No. 1 of 2000, which takes a strict, per-se-unethical position on undisclosed recording by attorneys. The opinion concluded it is unethical for an attorney to tape-record another attorney in a pending legal matter without informing them first, regardless of whether the recording is legal under Indiana’s one-party-consent wiretap law. The opinion reasoned that undisclosed recording is fundamentally deceitful and undermines the candor needed in off-the-record discussions. While advisory rather than binding, the opinion has not been superseded and remains the clearest Indiana authority on this issue. The opinion’s facts involved recording opposing counsel’s attorney in a medical malpractice case, but its reasoning likely extends to recording clients or other lawyers in similar contexts.

Imagine you’re on a Zoom call with a coworker discussing a project. Indiana’s one-party rule at Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-176 lets you press record without telling your coworker because you are a participant in the electronic communication. If you later play the recording for your manager, that is still lawful because at least one participant (you) knew the call was being recorded. If you instead set up a hidden recorder in your home office to capture a face-to-face meeting with the same coworker, Indiana law does not treat that as a wiretap offense because the conversation is not an “electronic communication” under Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-110—it is not transmitted by wire, radio, or an electromagnetic system. If you stream the same meeting live to a public platform, the video-only feed is unrestricted; adding a directional microphone to pick up hushed speech could raise different questions that a lawyer can sort out for you.