Recording Law for Recording in Public in Kentucky

Kentucky makes it legal to record any conversation you are part of without telling the other person. The state’s eavesdropping law defines the crime as intercepting a “wire or oral communication” without the consent of at least one party. That means if you are speaking to someone—whether in person, on the phone, or in a group—you can record the conversation without informing the others. The rule applies whether the talk happens in your home, at a park, on a sidewalk, or in a store. Kentucky’s statute does not add extra limits based on where you are, only who is part of the conversation. The law is found in Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 526, specifically KRS 526.010 (Definition of "eavesdrop") and KRS 526.020 (Eavesdropping).

Kentucky does not treat silent video-only recording as a crime under its eavesdropping law. The state’s wiretap statute covers only audio interception, not video. That means filming people in public parks, sidewalks, or stores—without recording audio—is unrestricted under Kentucky’s criminal code. The only video-specific crime in Kentucky is a narrow offense called “video voyeurism” (KRS 531.100), which applies only when someone secretly records another person’s sexual conduct, genitals, or nipple of the female breast in places where privacy is expected, such as restrooms or changing rooms. Recording a dispute, an interaction with another person, or a police encounter with video alone does not fall under that law.

Kentucky’s one-party consent rule lets you record conversations you are part of, but it does not automatically allow you to record strangers talking without you. Kentucky courts have not squarely adopted a general “no expectation of privacy in public” rule for bystander recording. Instead, they use a fact-specific reasonable-expectation-of-privacy analysis under common-law invasion-of-privacy doctrine when someone records others’ conversations to which the recorder is not a party. Because no Kentucky appellate case has set a clear bright-line rule, whether such a recording is lawful can depend on the specific facts.

Under Kentucky’s one-party consent rule in KRS 526.010, you can record your own exchanges with an on-duty police officer without their consent because you are a direct party to the conversation. However, Kentucky sits in the Sixth Circuit, which has not clearly decided whether there is a First Amendment right for bystanders to record police performing public duties in public places. A 2022 Sixth Circuit case, Hils v. Davis, addressed a narrower situation—police officers trying to record their own misconduct investigation interviews—and did not resolve the broader question of citizens filming police in public. Because the law here is unsettled, recording an officer interacting with someone else (not you) involves legal uncertainty and should be reviewed carefully.

Recording a wire or oral communication without the consent of at least one party is a Class D felony in Kentucky under KRS 526.020. A Class D felony carries potential prison time and fines. The law does include two narrow exceptions in KRS 526.070: inadvertent, non-divulged telephone party-line overhearing; and common-carrier employees acting within the necessary scope of employment. Outside those exceptions, the law applies regardless of where the conversation takes place. The statute itself does not create a private right to sue, so only law enforcement can bring criminal charges.

Imagine you are at a park and see two people shouting at each other. One person is loud enough that their words carry clearly to bystanders nearby. You turn on your phone’s video camera to capture the scene, but you do not record any audio. Under Kentucky law, this silent video recording is unrestricted because the state’s eavesdropping statute only covers audio. If you instead turn on the audio recorder while the argument is happening, Kentucky’s one-party consent rule in KRS 526.010 allows you to record the conversation only if you are a party to it. Whether that audio recording is lawful depends on whether the other person had a reasonable expectation of privacy in that public setting.

Kentucky’s eavesdropping statute, KRS 526.020, makes it a Class D felony to intercept a wire or oral communication without the consent of at least one party. However, the law includes two narrow exceptions where interception may occur without criminal liability. The first exception, set out in KRS 526.070, covers inadvertent, non-divulged overhearing of a party-line or extension telephone conversation where the listener was not intended to be included. The second exception, also in KRS 526.070, applies to common-carrier employees acting within the scope of their employment duties. These exceptions do not depend on the location of the conversation. The statute applies uniformly regardless of where the communication occurs, and no additional carve-outs exist for public spaces, private homes, or other settings.

Kentucky’s eavesdropping law (KRS 526.010 and KRS 526.020) covers secretly recording someone’s spoken words without their consent. The video voyeurism law (KRS 531.100) is much narrower and applies only when someone secretly records another person’s sexual conduct, genitals, or nipple of the female breast in places where privacy is expected, such as restrooms or changing rooms. Recording a dispute, an interaction, or a police encounter with video alone does not violate the video voyeurism law. Silent video recording in public is unrestricted under Kentucky’s criminal code.

Kentucky’s eavesdropping statute applies the same one-party consent rule whether you are inside your own home or outside, and it does not create a special carve-out for recording at home. KRS 526.010 defines eavesdropping as intercepting a wire or oral communication without the consent of at least one party, and this definition applies uniformly regardless of location. However, recording inside someone else’s home without their consent can lead to civil claims under Kentucky’s invasion-of-privacy laws, which are separate from the criminal eavesdropping statute. Those claims depend on whether the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy in that space.