Recording Law for Recording in Public in Maine

Maine allows you to record any conversation you take part in without telling the other person. This is called one-party consent. The rule comes from Maine’s wiretap law, which excludes from liability anyone who is a participant in the conversation or someone a participant has authorized. 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." Statements made in public, where anyone nearby could hear, generally do not carry a justified expectation of non-interception, so they fall outside the statute’s coverage. But if you’re talking in a place where people expect privacy—like a closed-door meeting—you may have a reasonable expectation the conversation won’t be recorded. The key point: if you’re part of the talk, you can record it under Maine law, because the statute’s exclusions allow a participant (or someone authorized by a participant) to lawfully record without the other party’s knowledge or consent. This framework applies equally to in-person (oral) and telephone/electronic (wire) communications under 15 M.R.S. §709(4), which 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.

Recording in public places like parks, sidewalks, or stores is generally unrestricted in Maine. That’s because there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy in those settings. Maine’s wiretap law only protects communications where a speaker exhibits an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation. The statute’s definition of "oral communication" in 15 M.R.S. §709(5) expressly limits coverage to utterances made under circumstances justifying an expectation of non-interception; statements made in public, or to/around a person recording as a participant, generally do not carry a justified expectation of non-interception. The same goes for silent video recording. Maine’s privacy law for images only restricts recording in a "private place," 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." A restaurant dining area, a grocery aisle, or a public sidewalk are not private places under the law. So, recording openly or even secretly in these areas is allowed as long as you’re not violating other laws, like trespassing or harassment. The First Circuit has held that the First Amendment protects the right to record on-duty police officers performing their duties in public, and this protection extends to secret/covert recording of police and other government officials performing public duties in public spaces.

Federal courts covering Maine protect your right to record on-duty police officers performing their duties in public. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which includes Maine, ruled in Glik v. Cunniffe that openly recording police in a public park is protected by the First Amendment. Later, in Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, the same court extended that protection to secret or covert recording of police and other government officials in public spaces. Maine’s wiretap statute allows a participant in an encounter to lawfully record without the other party’s consent, and the First Circuit’s First Amendment rulings provide additional protection. Together, these protections mean you can record police interactions in public without their consent. The wiretap statute itself contains a law-enforcement carve-out at 15 M.R.S. §710(1), exempting law enforcement/investigative/corrections officers from the "interception" offense when they are "carrying out practices otherwise permitted by this chapter" — this exempts officers' own authorized interceptions (e.g., body cameras, wiretaps under warrant), not civilians; it does not restrict a civilian's right to record police, which instead rests on the one-party-consent structure plus First Circuit First Amendment case law. No Maine statute specifically prohibits recording on-duty police in public.

Silent video recording in public is allowed in Maine because it does not involve the interception of a "wire" or "oral" communication under the wiretap statute. The law reaches only communications involving sound or speech; a device that merely captures images does not "intercept" anything under 15 M.R.S. §709(4). However, Maine’s privacy law for images can still apply. It prohibits recording in a "private place," 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." So, recording in a public restroom or a dressing area without consent could violate the law. But recording in a store aisle, park, or sidewalk is not restricted by this law. Always check the location—if it’s not a private place, silent video recording is generally fine. The statute’s "private place" definition is location-based and turns on reasonable expectation of privacy in the specific location/room rather than home-ownership per se.

Recording inside a home depends on the specific room, not just the fact that it’s a home. Maine’s privacy law for images defines a "private place" 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." A kitchen or living room shared with household members is usually not a private place. For conversations, Maine’s wiretap law asks whether the speaker exhibited an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation. The statute’s definition of "oral communication" in 15 M.R.S. §709(5) expressly limits coverage to utterances made under circumstances justifying an expectation of non-interception. A loud conversation in the kitchen may not meet that test, but a quiet, private talk in a closed bedroom might. So, recording in a common area of your own home is generally allowed if you’re part of the conversation, but recording in a bedroom or bathroom could be restricted. Always consider the specific setting and who’s involved. Maine’s statutes do not carve out a separate, distinct rule specifically for "recording inside one's own home" as such; the same general frameworks apply.

Maine’s wiretap statute, 15 M.R.S. §710, makes it a Class C crime to intercept or disclose the contents of a wire or oral communication without authorization. The statute’s exceptions at 15 M.R.S. §712 include activities by telecommunications carriers, law enforcement officers acting under authority, and certain disclosures to state agencies. Violations can also trigger a private civil action under 15 M.R.S. §711, which allows any party to a conversation intercepted in violation of the chapter to sue for liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation and reasonable attorney’s fees. Separately, 17-A M.R.S. §511 criminalizes non-consensual recording or photographing of images in a "private place" as a Class D offense. The wiretap statute also contains a law-enforcement carve-out at §710(1), exempting officers’ own authorized interceptions (e.g., body cameras under warrant) but not restricting civilians’ right to record. Title 15 violations range Class B (device sale) to Class C (interception/disclosure/possession) plus civil liability under §711; Title 17-A §511 is Class D — genuinely a mixed criminal/civil, multi-class scheme.

Maine’s Professional Ethics Commission has held that undisclosed recording of conversations is not per se unethical under Maine’s Rules of Professional Conduct. Opinion No. 168 (1999, reaffirmed 2015) explains that Rule 8.4(c)—which prohibits 'engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation'—does not categorically forbid undisclosed recording if it is lawful under Maine’s one-party consent statute and federal law. The opinion adopts a situation-specific approach: undisclosed recording is permissible in most circumstances, but becomes an ethical violation where the lawyer affirmatively induces the other party to believe the conversation is confidential or lies if directly asked whether a call is being recorded. The opinion ties its permissive conclusion to the legality of one-party consent recording under 15 M.R.S. §709 and 18 U.S.C. §2511, while noting that federal law prohibits recording for criminal or tortious purposes.

Maine does not currently have a biometric privacy statute. The state has repeatedly attempted to pass a BIPA-style dedicated biometric statute, most recently as LD 1705 in the 2023–24 legislative session and LD 1822 in the 2025–26 session, but neither bill became law. As of July 2026, there is no enacted biometric privacy statute in Maine, and no comprehensive consumer privacy law imposing consent or retention requirements specifically for voiceprints or other biometric identifiers. Maine’s general breach-notification statute, 10 M.R.S. §1347, and its Unfair Trade Practices Act may still apply in the background the way they would to any sensitive data, but neither requires affirmative consent before capture the way BIPA/CUBI/RCW 19.375 do. Both failed bills expressly defined "biometric identifier"/"biometric data" to include a voiceprint. A future reintroduction (likely 133rd Legislature, convening 2027) is plausible and would need to be re-checked.

Maine’s wiretap law distinguishes between "wire communication" and "oral communication." "Wire communication" under 15 M.R.S. §709(7) covers calls/electronic transmissions over wire/cable, while "oral communication" under §709(5) covers in-person utterances made with an expectation of non-interception. Both are governed by the same §710 offense and the same "intercept" definition at §709(4), which 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. In effect, a participant in a conversation (or someone one participant has authorized) may lawfully record it — whether in person or by phone — without the other party's knowledge or consent. No stricter separate rule exists for phone vs. in-person conversations. For silent video/image capture, Maine’s statutes treat it separately: silent video with no audio is NOT restricted by the Chapter 102 wiretap statute — that chapter reaches only "wire" and "oral" communications (sound/speech), and a device that merely captures images does not "intercept" anything under 15 M.R.S. §709(4). However, silent video/image capture can independently violate 17-A M.R.S. §511 ("Violation of privacy") if it involves installing or using a device to "observ[e], photograph[], record[], amplify[] or broadcast... images" of a person in a "private place" without consent of the person entitled to privacy there (§511(1)(B)), or use of such a device outside a private place to capture images "originating in that place that would not ordinarily be visible... outside that place" (§511(1)(C)).

For wearable-device users, Maine’s one-party consent framework generally permits recording encounters where the wearer is a participant, whether in person or by phone. The First Circuit’s First Amendment rulings protect openly or secretly recording on-duty police in public, and Maine’s wiretap statute allows a participant to record without the other party’s consent. Wearable-device users should avoid recording in "private places" as defined by 17-A M.R.S. §511, including changing or dressing rooms, bathrooms, and similar places. In ordinary public/semi-public settings like streets, sidewalks, and most face-to-face disputes/police encounters, silent video in those locations is not covered by §511 because such locations are not "private places" under the statute's reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test. Always assess the specific location and whether you are a participant in the conversation before recording.