Recording Law for Employers & Businesses in Michigan

Michigan’s eavesdropping statute, MCL 750.539c, makes it a felony to use any device to eavesdrop upon a "private conversation" without the consent of all parties. However, Michigan courts have narrowed this rule for participants. If you are part of the conversation, you can record it without anyone else’s permission because the statute’s definition of "eavesdrop" reaches only the "private discourse of others." Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982). This participant exception applies to both phone calls and in-person conversations. If you are not part of the conversation and try to record it, you must get everyone’s consent first. The law distinguishes between audio-only and video-only recording: silent video with no audio capture does not implicate the eavesdropping statute at all, while audio capture of a private conversation triggers the all-party-consent rule unless you are a participant. "Private place" means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access.

Under MCL 750.539d(1)(a), it is a felony to install, place, or use in any private place any device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in that place without the consent of the person entitled to privacy there. This means you cannot install, place, or use a recording device in a break room, bathroom, or someone’s home office without consent. But Michigan law carves out an explicit exception for the home: MCL 750.539d(2) provides that the prohibitions in subsection (1) "do not apply to security monitoring in a residence if conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence, unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose." So if you are the owner or principal occupant, you can record audio and video inside your own home for security without telling guests, except for a lewd or lascivious purpose. If the space is private and not open to the public, you need consent to record video. If the space is public, like a store floor or sidewalk, you can record video without consent. Silent video with no audio capture is not eavesdropping under MCL 750.539c, and it is not restricted by MCL 750.539d because "private place" means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access.

Michigan has no statute barring the recording of on-duty police in public. The state’s eavesdropping statute only applies where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and public places do not qualify. "Private place" means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access. Michigan is in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The Sixth Circuit has NOT issued a published, binding decision recognizing a general public right to record police in public; the closest authority, Crawford v. Geiger, 656 F. App'x 190 (6th Cir. 2016), is unpublished/persuasive only. Recording on-duty police in public is understood to be lawful in Michigan (no statutory bar, and outside the eavesdropping statute's "private place" scope), but it rests on statutory silence/definitional exclusion plus persuasive-only case law rather than a definitive published Sixth Circuit or Michigan Supreme Court holding.

If you are recording video in a place the public can access — a store, street, park, or government building lobby during open hours — you do not need anyone’s consent. "Private place" means a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance but does not include a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access, so the eavesdropping statute and the hidden-device video restriction do not apply. This means you can use smartglasses, dashcams, or fixed cameras to record video in these areas without worrying about Michigan’s consent laws. The key is whether the public or substantial group of the public has access to the space, not whether individuals in the video consent. Silent video with no audio capture is not eavesdropping under MCL 750.539c and is not restricted by MCL 750.539d in public spaces.

Imagine your retail staff wear smartglasses that record video and audio during customer interactions on the sales floor. Because the store is open to the public, the space is not a "private place" under MCL 750.539a(1), so the video-only recording is not restricted by MCL 750.539d. The audio is part of the staff member’s own conversation with the customer, and because the staff member is a participant, the recording does not constitute eavesdropping under MCL 750.539c; the statute’s definition of "eavesdrop" reaches only the "private discourse of others." Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982). However, if the glasses recorded a private conversation in the back office — a place employees reasonably expect privacy — then the recording would violate the law without all parties’ consent.

Violating Michigan’s eavesdropping or hidden-device laws can lead to felony charges and civil lawsuits. MCL 750.539c makes it a felony for any person who is present or not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto, or who knowingly aids, employs or procures another person to do the same. MCL 750.539d(1)(a) makes it a felony to install, place, or use in any private place any device for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in that place without the consent of the person entitled to privacy there. Victims can also sue for damages under MCL 750.539h. Even if your recording policy is meant for liability protection, getting it wrong can backfire. For example, installing a recording device in a break room where employees reasonably expect privacy could expose your business to criminal charges and a lawsuit. Always check whether the conversation or location is private and whether you or your staff are participants before recording. When in doubt, get consent or avoid recording.

Michigan’s statutes include several targeted exceptions. Law-enforcement officers acting in their official duties are exempt from the eavesdropping prohibitions under MCL 750.539g, but this does not restrict citizens from recording police. The definition of "eavesdrop" or "eavesdropping" in MCL 750.539a(2) does not modify the laws governing the interception of messages transmitted by communications common carriers, so federal law may still apply to certain electronic communications even when Michigan’s statute does not. Additionally, MCL 750.539d(2) provides that the prohibitions in subsection (1) "do not apply to security monitoring in a residence if conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant of that residence, unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose." These carve-outs operate alongside the general framework and do not expand the scope of the prohibitions.