Recording Law for Video-Only Recording in Indiana

Indiana does not restrict recording video without audio, whether in public or on private property, as long as the camera is attended and not left unattended on someone else’s property. The state’s wiretap law, Indiana Code § 35-33.5, only covers the intentional recording of "electronic communications" such as phone calls or text messages, not in-person speech or silent video. Indiana Code § 35-46-8.5-1 specifically targets unattended cameras placed on another person’s private property without consent, making it a crime to leave a camera behind on someone else’s land. If you’re holding the camera or recording live video on your own property or in public, Indiana law does not prohibit it. This means you can record silent video or take photos without audio anywhere you are legally present, as long as you’re not trespassing or violating another law.

Indiana’s wiretap statute defines "interception" as the intentional recording of the contents of an "electronic communication" by someone who is not a sender or receiver, without the consent of a sender or receiver. An "electronic communication" under Indiana Code § 35-31.5-2-110 is a transfer of information by wire, radio, or an electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system — like a phone call or email. Ordinary in-person speech, even if audible, is not transmitted by any of these systems, so it does not qualify as an "electronic communication" and falls outside the wiretap law. Because silent video captures no "electronic communication," it is not regulated by Indiana’s wiretap statute. The statute’s text makes this clear: it only applies to recordings of communications that are transmitted electronically, not to in-person conversations or silent video. Indiana courts have not squarely addressed whether a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy exception could apply to public recording, but the wiretap statute’s medium-of-transmission gate is the controlling factor. One non-precedential appellate decision, Whitt v. Town of New Carlisle, No. 20A-CT-2279, 2021 WL 2010143, at *3 (Ind. Ct. App. May 20, 2021), supports the view that Indiana’s interception statute does not address in-person conversation recording.

Indiana has one law that specifically mentions cameras: Indiana Code § 35-46-8.5-1, titled "Unlawful Photography, Surveillance, and Tracking on Private Property." This law makes it a crime to knowingly place a camera or surveillance equipment that records images or data while unattended on the private property of another person without the owner or tenant’s consent. The offense is a Class A misdemeanor, and it becomes a Level 6 felony if the person has prior convictions or is subject to a protective order. Importantly, this law only applies to cameras that are left unattended on someone else’s property. It does not restrict you from recording with a camera you are holding, whether in public or on your own property. The law also explicitly exempts law-enforcement officers’ own recording devices, but it does not restrict civilians from recording with attended cameras. Indiana’s wiretap statute does not reach video-only recording at all, so the camera law is the only statute that could potentially restrict video recording in Indiana.

In Indiana, you have a First Amendment right to record police officers performing their official duties in public, as recognized by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012). Indiana has no law requiring consent to record police in public with a live, attended camera. However, Indiana enacted a "buffer law" in 2023 that made it a Class C misdemeanor to approach within 25 feet of a law-enforcement officer after being ordered to stop. In August 2025, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of this law on vagueness grounds in Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Rokita, No. 24-2927 (7th Cir. Aug. 5, 2025), and the case is still pending on remand as of spring 2026. Until the litigation is finally resolved, the buffer law’s enforceability is unsettled. Recording police from more than a purely arbitrary distance in public, without interfering, remains on solid First Amendment footing, but the buffer law’s status is in active dispute. Indiana later added 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 in effect and is not covered by the preliminary injunction.

Imagine you’re a streamer in Indiana covering a public protest. You’re holding a camera with no microphone, recording only video of the scene. You’re standing on a public sidewalk, and police are present managing the crowd. Under Indiana law, your silent video recording is not restricted by the wiretap statute because you’re not capturing an electronic communication, and it’s not restricted by the camera law because your camera is attended and you’re not on someone else’s private property. The buffer law’s 25-foot rule is currently under a preliminary injunction, so its enforceability is unclear, but your recording itself is protected by the First Amendment as recognized in Alvarez. You can legally stream this video without audio in Indiana, as long as you’re not trespassing or violating another law.

Indiana has no law that specifically restricts recording inside your own home, and the camera law only prohibits unattended cameras left on another person’s property. However, if you’re recording video inside your home, consider the context. If you’re using the recording in a way that violates another law — such as sharing intimate images without consent — that could create legal trouble, but the recording itself is not restricted by Indiana’s wiretap or camera laws. Indiana’s new privacy law, the Indiana Consumer Data Protection Act, treats biometric data like voiceprints as "sensitive data" requiring opt-in consent, but this only applies to companies processing data at scale, not to individuals recording in their homes. For personal use, recording silent video inside your own home is not restricted by Indiana law.

Indiana’s wiretap statute does not reach ordinary in-person conversations at all because it only regulates the interception of "electronic communications" transmitted by wire, radio, or an electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system. An in-person conversation that is not transmitted by any of these systems is not an "electronic communication" under Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-110, so it falls outside the definition of "interception" in Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-176. This means you can record in-person conversations in Indiana without consent, regardless of whether the setting is public or private, loud or hushed, or witnessed by third parties. The statute’s text is clear on this point: it is a medium-of-transmission test, not a privacy-expectation test. One non-precedential appellate decision, Whitt v. Town of New Carlisle, No. 20A-CT-2279, 2021 WL 2010143, at *3 (Ind. Ct. App. May 20, 2021), supports the view that Indiana’s interception statute does not address in-person conversation recording. Because the statute’s scope turns on how the communication is transmitted, not on whether the speakers had a reasonable expectation of privacy, recording an in-person dispute or an in-person exchange with a police officer using a wearable device is not "intercepting" an "electronic communication" between two other parties, so Article 33.5 does not reach it.