Recording Law for Voiceprints & Biometric Data in Louisiana

Louisiana law allows you to record any conversation you are part of without telling the other people. The Louisiana Electronic Surveillance Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:1303, provides that it is not unlawful to intercept a "wire, electronic, or oral communication" where "one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent." This rule is codified at La. R.S. 15:1303(C)(4), which states: "It shall not be unlawful under this Chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception, unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the laws of this state or any other state or of the United States or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act." The same section also prohibits using the recording to commit a crime or tort. The law treats all three types of communication—wire, electronic, and oral—the same way for this purpose. There is no separate rule for phone calls versus in-person talks. The key is that you, as a participant, have consented; the other parties do not need to know. Violations of La. R.S. 15:1303 are punishable as felonies under Louisiana law.

Not every spoken word is protected under Louisiana’s wiretap law. The statute defines an "oral communication" at La. R.S. 15:1302(17) as "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication." This is a two-part test: first, the speaker must actually expect privacy, and second, society would recognize that expectation as reasonable. If the conversation is loud, in a crowded room, or on a public street, the expectation may not be reasonable. If it is quiet, private, or moved away from others, the expectation may be reasonable. Louisiana courts apply a Katz/Harlan reasonable-expectation-of-privacy framework under the state constitution, as explained in State v. Reeves, 427 So. 2d 403 (La. 1983). Only when an "oral communication" meets this definition does the one-party consent rule in La. R.S. 15:1303(C)(4) apply; otherwise, the statute does not cover the communication at all.

You have a First Amendment right to record on-duty police officers in public, as long as you follow reasonable time, place, and manner rules. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which covers Louisiana, recognized this right in Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 688–89 (5th Cir. 2017), holding that there is a First Amendment right to record police performing official duties in public, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Louisiana also has a law that makes it a crime to stay within 25 feet of a police officer after being ordered to stop approaching or retreat. That law, La. R.S. 40:2410.2, was preliminarily enjoined by a federal district judge on January 31, 2025 as unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because the law is only preliminarily blocked—not struck down—you should treat it as still in effect unless a court finally says otherwise. Do not assume you can ignore an officer’s order to move back while recording.

Louisiana’s wiretap law only criminalizes the "interception" of a "wire, electronic, or oral communication" as those terms are defined in La. R.S. 15:1302. All three definitions center on aural or transmitted communications, so silent video-only capture (no audio) does not fall within the statute’s scope at all; no consent of any kind is statutorily required to record silent video. Separately, Louisiana’s video voyeurism statute, La. R.S. 14:283, can criminalize non-consensual image or video capture, but only where the subject is in "a place where [they have] a reasonable expectation of privacy." Its core application is to bathrooms, changing rooms, and similar private settings, and it carries a lewd or sexual-gratification or nudity element in most of its operative clauses. It would not reach video-only recording of a public dispute, a police interaction, or other real-world incidents in public or semi-public places, since no reasonable expectation of privacy exists there.

Starting January 1, 2027, Louisiana’s new Louisiana Data Privacy Act (LDPA), enacted as Act 502 of the 2026 Regular Session (codified at La. R.S. 51:1780.1–51:1780.5), will require businesses to get your explicit consent before processing your biometric data for identification. The law defines "biometric data" at La. R.S. 51:1780.1(3) as "data generated by automatic measurements of an individual's biological characteristics that are used to identify a specific individual. The term includes a fingerprint, voiceprint, eye retina or iris scan, or other unique biological pattern or characteristic when such data is used to identify the specific individual. The term does not include a physical or digital photograph or data generated from a physical or digital photograph or a video or audio recording or data generated from a video or audio recording, unless such data is generated to identify a specific individual." The law also treats biometric data used for identification as "sensitive data" under La. R.S. 51:1780.1(29)(b), which may only be processed with your consent. The operative consent duty is at La. R.S. 51:1780.4(A)(2)(d), which provides: "A controller shall not process the sensitive data of a consumer without obtaining the consumer's consent." "Consent" is defined at La. R.S. 51:1780.1(6) as "a clear affirmative act signifying a consumer's freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous agreement to process personal data," and expressly excludes acceptance in general or broad terms of use. Businesses must also post a specific notice when selling biometric personal data: "NOTICE: We may sell your biometric personal data." The Attorney General enforces the law; there is no private right to sue. The law only applies to businesses that meet certain size or data-handling thresholds: annual gross revenue over $25 million, annually buy/sell/share personal data of 75,000+ consumers/households/devices, or derive 50%+ of annual revenue from selling personal data. There is a mandatory 30-day cure period from January 1, 2027 through July 31, 2027 before the Attorney General can sue.

Recording a conversation in violation of Louisiana’s one-party consent rule can result in felony charges under La. R.S. 15:1303. The statute provides that violations are punishable by imprisonment at hard labor for not less than two years nor more than ten years and a fine of not more than $10,000. Separately, La. R.S. 15:1312 provides a private right of action for aggrieved persons, allowing recovery of actual or liquidated damages of $100 per day or $1,000, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. These penalties apply regardless of whether the recording was made in person, over the phone, or through electronic means, so long as the communication qualified as a "wire, electronic, or oral communication" under the statute.

Louisiana’s wiretap law includes a separate provision for law enforcement and other government actors. La. R.S. 15:1303(C)(3) provides that it is not unlawful for a person "acting under color of law" to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent. This provision mirrors the one-party consent rule for private parties but applies to government actors acting in their official capacities. The statute states: "It shall not be unlawful under this Chapter for a person acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception, unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the laws of this state or any other state or of the United States or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act." The law does not create a broader exception for government recording beyond the one-party consent framework.

Imagine you are a lawyer meeting a client in a busy coffee shop. You use your phone’s voice-ID feature to record the conversation for later review. Louisiana’s one-party consent rule allows this because you are part of the conversation. But you should check whether the client has a reasonable expectation of privacy under La. R.S. 15:1302(17). If the shop is loud and crowded, the expectation may not be reasonable, and the recording is clearly allowed. If the client lowers their voice and moves to a quiet corner, the expectation may be reasonable, but you are still allowed to record because you are a participant. Starting January 1, 2027, if you extract a voiceprint from that recording for identification purposes, you must get the client’s explicit consent under the new Louisiana Data Privacy Act, which treats biometric data like voiceprints as "sensitive data" requiring consent under La. R.S. 51:1780.4(A)(2)(d).