Recording Law for Recording in Public in Indiana

Indiana’s wiretap law only restricts recording conversations that are carried by wire, radio, or an electromagnetic system — like a phone call or VoIP chat — not ordinary face-to-face speech. Indiana Code § 35-31.5-2-110 defines an "electronic communication" to include things like phone calls and texts, but it also lists "oral communication" only when it’s transmitted by one of those systems. An unassisted in-person conversation isn’t transmitted by wire or radio, so it doesn’t meet that definition. Because the law’s ban on "interception" (Indiana Code § 35-31.5-2-176) only applies to electronic communications, recording an in-person conversation — whether in a park, on a sidewalk, or inside a store — is not covered by the wiretap statute at all. Indiana has no separate law that requires consent for in-person recording, so no one’s permission is needed to record these conversations. The only Indiana statute that mentions cameras, § 35-46-8.5-1, only bans unattended cameras left on someone else’s private property without consent — it does not restrict a person wearing a live camera or recorder in public or at home. One non-precedential appellate decision supports this reading: Whitt v. Town of New Carlisle, No. 20A-CT-2279, 2021 WL 2010143 (Ind. Ct. App. May 20, 2021).

For conversations carried by wire, radio, or an electromagnetic system — such as phone calls, VoIP calls, text messages, or emails — Indiana follows a one-party consent rule. Indiana Code § 35-33.5-5-5 makes it a Level 5 felony to unlawfully intercept an electronic communication, and § 35-33.5-5-4 allows a civil lawsuit for damages. But Indiana Code § 35-31.5-2-176 defines "interception" as recording or acquiring the contents of an electronic communication by someone who isn’t a sender or receiver, without the consent of a sender or receiver. Because a participant in the call or chat is a sender or receiver, recording your own call or text with that person’s knowledge is not interception at all. Even if you’re not a participant, the law allows recording as long as at least one sender or receiver consents — Indiana’s one-party consent rule. So if you’re on a call with someone, you can record it without telling the other person, and if you’re not on the call, you can record it as long as either the caller or the recipient agrees.

Recording police officers performing their duties in public is protected by the First Amendment under Seventh Circuit precedent. In ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012), the court recognized a right to record police in public, and Indiana courts follow that rule. Indiana also has a 25-foot "buffer law" (Indiana Code § 35-44.1-2-14) that makes it a Class C misdemeanor to approach within 25 feet of an officer after being ordered to stop, but this law is currently under a preliminary injunction. In Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Rokita, No. 24-2927 (7th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025), the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s order blocking enforcement of the buffer law on vagueness grounds, and the case is still pending on remand. So while the buffer law nominally exists, it cannot be enforced right now. Recording an officer from beyond that distance, or from an unclear distance where no order was given, is on solid First Amendment footing. But if an officer orders you to stop approaching and you continue within 25 feet, you could face charges even though the law is enjoined — a lawyer should check the latest status before relying on this. The Seventh Circuit also upheld the buffer law’s constitutionality as a content-neutral time/place/manner restriction in Nicodemus v. City of South Bend, 137 F.4th 654 (7th Cir. 2025). Indiana enacted a second buffer law in 2025, effective July 1, 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 in effect and is not covered by the preliminary injunction.

Recording video without audio in public is unrestricted under Indiana law. The wiretap statute only covers interception of electronic communications, which requires audio or data transmission between parties — not ambient video. The camera-specific law, Indiana Code § 35-46-8.5-1, only bans unattended cameras left on someone else’s private property without consent. Wearing a live camera in public, at home, or anywhere else is not covered by either statute. So filming people in a park, store, or restaurant without their permission is allowed as long as you don’t add audio from a wiretap or similar device.

If you unlawfully intercept an electronic communication — like recording a phone call without one-party consent — you could face criminal charges under Indiana Code § 35-33.5-5-5, a Level 5 felony. The same act could also trigger a civil lawsuit under Indiana Code § 35-33.5-5-4, where the other party can sue for actual damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and punitive damages, subject to a two-year statute of limitations. The law also allows a defense if you acted under a warrant or court order, but that’s rare for everyday recording. For video-only recording, there’s no specific penalty in Indiana law, since the relevant statutes don’t apply. For police recording, the main risk is violating the buffer law if it’s enforced while the injunction is in place — but that’s currently blocked, so the practical risk is low unless the law changes. Separately, businesses handling biometric data in Indiana must comply with the Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act (effective January 1, 2026), which requires opt-in consent to process "sensitive data" including biometric identifiers derived from voiceprints or other unique biological patterns. Violations are enforced exclusively by the Attorney General, with a mandatory 30-day cure period and civil penalties capped at $7,500 per violation; there is no private right of action. The Act excludes raw audio or video recordings from the definition of "biometric data," so only derived voiceprint templates are covered, and only if the controller meets applicability thresholds (processing personal data of at least 100,000 Indiana consumers annually, or at least 25,000 with more than 50% revenue from data sales).

Imagine you’re sitting in a coffee shop and two people at the next table start arguing loudly. You pull out your phone and record the conversation without telling them. Under Indiana law, this is allowed because the conversation is in-person and not transmitted by wire or radio, so it’s not covered by the wiretap statute. If you later post the video online, the speakers could object to the posting, but they can’t sue you just for recording it in that setting. Now imagine you’re on a phone call with a coworker and record it without telling them. That’s also allowed because Indiana follows one-party consent for electronic communications like phone calls. But if you secretly record a phone call between two other people without either’s consent, that would violate the wiretap law and could lead to criminal charges or a civil lawsuit.

Indiana has no special rule for recording inside your own home. The wiretap statute does not reach in-home conversations because they are not transmitted by wire, radio, or an electromagnetic system, and the camera-specific law, Ind. Code § 35-46-8.5-1, only bans unattended cameras placed on someone else’s private property without consent. Wearing or using a live camera or recorder inside your own home is not restricted by either statute. Indiana also has no heightened consent requirement for in-home recording under any other law.

Wearing a live body camera or other wearable recording device to capture disputes, interactions, or police encounters — whether in public or on your own property — is not restricted by Indiana’s wiretap statute, which only governs interception of electronic communications between parties. The camera-specific statute, Ind. Code § 35-46-8.5-1, only criminalizes unattended cameras left on someone else’s private property without consent, so attended wearable devices fall outside its scope. No Indiana appellate decision was found squarely addressing body-camera fact patterns, but the statutory text strongly supports that such recording is unrestricted.

Businesses that process biometric data in Indiana must comply with the Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act (effective January 1, 2026). The Act treats derived voiceprints and other unique biological identifiers as "sensitive data" requiring opt-in consent before processing. Raw audio or video recordings are explicitly excluded from the definition of "biometric data," so only derived templates used to identify individuals are covered. The law applies only if the controller processes personal data of at least 100,000 Indiana consumers annually, or at least 25,000 with more than 50% of gross revenue derived from the sale of personal data. Enforcement is handled exclusively by the Attorney General, with a mandatory 30-day cure period and civil penalties capped at $7,500 per violation; there is no private right of action. The Attorney General’s enforcement authority includes recovery of investigation and attorney’s fees.