Recording Law for Police & Civil Rights in Maine

In Maine, you can openly record on-duty police officers performing their duties in public. The First Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Maine, has ruled that this is protected by the First Amendment. The court held in Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) that openly recording police in a public park is protected activity because it involves matters of public concern and does not interfere with police duties. Later, in Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020), the same court extended that protection to secret or covert recording of on-duty police in public spaces, striking down Massachusetts’s all-party wiretap statute as applied to such recordings. Maine also follows a one-party consent rule for recordings under 15 M.R.S. §§709–713. This means you can record a conversation you are part of without telling the other person. Since you are part of an encounter with police, you are a "party" under 15 M.R.S. §709(4)(A) and can record it under Maine’s wiretap law (15 M.R.S. §§709–713). No Maine statute specifically bans recording on-duty police in public, and both audio and video recording are allowed in public areas like streets or sidewalks.

Maine is a one-party consent state under 15 M.R.S. §§709–713. This law says you can record any conversation you are part of without informing the other person. The law defines an "oral communication" as one "uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation" (15 M.R.S. §709(5)). This is a two-part test: a subjective prong (the speaker must actually exhibit an expectation of non-interception) and an objective prong (the circumstances must justify that expectation). In public, most statements do not carry that expectation. For example, if an officer shouts orders during a traffic stop, you can record without consent. The law also allows recording if you are a participant in a conversation, which includes being addressed by an officer. The statute includes a carve-out for law enforcement officers acting under their duties, but that does not restrict civilians. Violations of the wiretap law are a Class C crime under 15 M.R.S. §710(1); selling or advertising an interception device is a Class B crime under 15 M.R.S. §710(1)(A). You can sue for liquidated damages and attorney’s fees under 15 M.R.S. §711.

Silent video recording in public areas like streets or sidewalks is allowed because Maine’s wiretap law (15 M.R.S. §§709–713) only covers audio, not images. But a separate law, 17-A M.R.S. §511, covers video recording in "private places." A private place is defined as "a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from surveillance, including, but not limited to, changing or dressing rooms, bathrooms and similar places" (17-A M.R.S. §511(2)). Ordinary public areas do not qualify. So, filming a police stop on a sidewalk is fine, but filming inside someone’s bathroom without consent is not. The law focuses on the location and the specific room’s reasonable expectation of privacy rather than ownership of the property. If you’re unsure whether a place is private, assume it is unless it’s clearly a public space.

Recording inside a home depends on the specific room and circumstances. Maine’s privacy law (17-A M.R.S. §511) treats bedrooms, bathrooms, and similar areas as private places where recording without consent is not allowed. Common areas like kitchens or living rooms are not automatically private. The same goes for audio: if someone is speaking in a hushed tone or in a closed room, they may have a reasonable expectation the conversation isn’t being recorded. The law looks at the facts of each situation, not just the type of property. Under the wiretap statute, an "oral communication" must be "uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation" (15 M.R.S. §709(5)). This is a two-part test: a subjective prong (the speaker must actually exhibit an expectation of non-interception) and an objective prong (the circumstances must justify that expectation). If the circumstances do not justify that expectation, no consent is required to record. If you’re in someone’s home and unsure, it’s safest to ask or avoid recording unless it’s clearly a public-facing area.

Imagine you’re pulled over by a police officer in Maine. You start recording the encounter with your phone. The officer shouts orders and questions you. You continue recording even after the officer tells you to stop. Under Maine law, this is allowed. You are a "party" to the conversation under 15 M.R.S. §709(4)(A), so one-party consent applies. The First Circuit has ruled that openly recording police in public is protected by the First Amendment in Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) because it involves matters of public concern and does not interfere with police duties. Even if the officer objects, you are within your rights to record. The officer cannot lawfully order you to stop recording just because they object, and cannot confiscate your phone or delete the recording. If they do, that could be a separate legal issue, but the recording itself is lawful.

If someone violates Maine’s wiretap law by illegally recording a conversation they’re not part of, it’s a Class C crime under 15 M.R.S. §710(1); selling or advertising an interception device is a Class B crime under 15 M.R.S. §710(1)(A). You can also sue for liquidated damages and attorney’s fees under 15 M.R.S. §711. If police interfere with your recording—such as deleting footage or ordering you to stop—you may have a claim under the First Amendment. Officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for enforcing policies that violate clearly established First Amendment rights, as the First Circuit made clear in Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) and Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020). If an officer arrests you for recording, that could be a separate issue, but the recording itself remains lawful. Always check the specific facts of your situation with a lawyer if you face consequences.

Maine’s wiretap statute (15 M.R.S. §§709–713) includes several exceptions. Law enforcement, investigative, and corrections officers are exempt from the "interception" offense when they are "carrying out practices otherwise permitted by this chapter" (15 M.R.S. §710(1)). The statute also excludes from liability: (A) the sender or receiver of the communication, (B) a person within range of normal unaided (or corrected-to-normal) hearing, and (C) a person given prior authority by the sender or receiver (15 M.R.S. §709(4)). These provisions reinforce the one-party consent framework and clarify that civilians acting as participants or with participant authorization may lawfully record conversations without the other party’s knowledge or consent. Chapter 102 also contains a newer §714 on jail attorney-client communications, though it does not alter the one-party consent framework.