Recording Law for Family Law in Michigan

In Michigan, you can legally record a conversation you are part of without telling the other person. The state's eavesdropping law targets the "private discourse of others," so a participant recording their own conversation does not violate the statute. The Michigan Court of Appeals has held that the statutory language "unambiguously excludes participant recording from the definition of eavesdropping." This rule applies whether the conversation occurs in person or over the phone. For example, if you are in a custody exchange and record the other parent's words while speaking with them, you are not breaking the eavesdropping statute. The participant exception is grounded in Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982), which interpreted the statute to exclude recordings made by participants in their own conversations.

Michigan's eavesdropping statute applies to electronic communications the same way it applies to in-person conversations. MCL 750.539c prohibits using a device to eavesdrop on 'private discourse' without the consent of all parties, and courts have applied this to telephone calls and other electronic communications. However, the participant exception still applies: if you are part of the conversation, recording it for your own use does not violate the statute. Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982), and Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022), both involved phone calls and confirmed that participants may record their own conversations without violating Michigan's eavesdropping law. The statute does not create a separate consent standard for electronic communications; it applies the same all-party-consent rule on its face, narrowed by the participant exception for those involved in the conversation.

If a custody exchange happens in a public place—like a park, parking lot, or public building—you can record without anyone's consent. Michigan law defines a 'private place' as somewhere you can reasonably expect privacy, and it specifically excludes 'a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access.' Because public places are excluded from the definition of 'private place,' recording there is not considered eavesdropping under MCL 750.539c and does not implicate the hidden-camera restriction in MCL 750.539d. For instance, if you meet in a shopping mall food court to exchange your child, you can record the interaction without notifying the other parent. The law treats this as unrestricted recording because the location itself removes the privacy expectation built into the statute's definitions, as courts have recognized. This rule applies even if the conversation is private in content, as long as it occurs where the public has access.

Recording on-duty police officers performing their duties in public is generally understood to be lawful in Michigan. The state's eavesdropping statute targets 'private discourse' and 'private places,' and courts apply a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test built into the statutory text. Because encounters with police in public places do not occur in 'private places' as defined by MCL 750.539a(1), they fall outside the statute's reach. Michigan courts have not issued a published decision squarely on point for recording police in public, and secondary sources and the statutory text consistently treat such recordings as lawful. The Sixth Circuit has not issued a published, binding decision recognizing a general public right to record police, and the only on-point authority, Crawford v. Geiger, 656 F. App'x 190 (6th Cir. 2016), is unpublished and persuasive only. In Hils v. Davis, 52 F.4th 997 (6th Cir. 2022), the Sixth Circuit addressed recording in a different context but did not embrace an expansive right to record. As a result, recording police in public is understood to be lawful in Michigan, but it rests on statutory silence and definitional exclusion rather than a definitive published holding.

A silent video recording made in a 'private place' without the consent of the person entitled to privacy there is restricted under Michigan law. 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.' The statute does not require that audio be captured, so a video-only hidden-camera recording in a private place is prohibited even if no sound is recorded. Lewis v. LeGrow, 258 Mich. App. 175 (2003), applied this to a video-only hidden-camera bedroom recording, confirming that the statute reaches silent video in private places. However, because a 'private place' by definition excludes places accessible to the public, video-only recording of incidents occurring in public is not restricted by this statute. MCL 750.539c, the core audio-eavesdropping felony, targets 'eavesdrop[ping]' defined as overhearing or recording 'private discourse,' so silent video with no sound capture does not implicate 750.539c.

Recording in a private place—like someone else's home, a private office, or a hotel room—without the other person's consent is illegal in Michigan. The state's hidden-camera law (MCL 750.539d) makes it a felony to install or use a 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 applies to the use of a device in a private place, not merely to the presence of a person. For example, if you record a custody exchange happening inside the other parent's home, you could face felony charges under this law. The statute does not require that the device be hidden; it covers any installation or use of a device in a private place without consent. Audio-only recording in a private place may also violate MCL 750.539c if it captures 'private discourse' without the consent of all parties.

Michigan law specifically allows homeowners and principal occupants to record inside their own home for security without telling guests. MCL 750.539d(2) provides that 'This section does not prohibit 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.' This means you can set up cameras in your living room, hallway, or driveway to monitor activity without the other parent's consent if the exchange occurs at your home. The exception applies to both audio and video recording within the residence. However, this exception does not extend to recording in someone else's home or any other private space—only your own residence qualifies. There is no blanket exception for recording in a hotel room, another person's office, or a vehicle, even if you are the owner or occupant.

Violating Michigan's eavesdropping or hidden-camera laws can lead to serious consequences. Recording in a private place without consent is a felony under MCL 750.539d if done via a device, and audio-only recording in a private place may violate MCL 750.539c if it captures 'private discourse' without all-party consent. A violation of MCL 750.539d is punishable by imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine of not more than $2,000, or both. You could also face a civil lawsuit for invasion of privacy under MCL 750.539h, which allows the aggrieved person to sue for damages, equitable relief, and reasonable attorney fees. These risks apply regardless of whether you intended to use the recording in court. Always check the location, who is present, and whether you are a participant before recording to avoid breaking the law.

Michigan's eavesdropping statute includes an explicit exception for law-enforcement surveillance. MCL 750.539g(a) exempts 'eavesdropping or surveillance... by a peace officer of this state or of the federal government, or the officer's agent, while in the performance of the officer's duties' from the Chapter's prohibitions. This means police and federal agents may conduct surveillance without violating the statute while acting in their official capacity. The exception does not, however, restrict citizens from recording police performing public duties in public places. No Michigan statute specifically bars citizens from recording on-duty police in public, and the general 'private place' framework means such recordings are not covered by the eavesdropping statute. The law-enforcement exception applies only to government actors, not to private individuals.

Imagine you and your co-parent agree to meet at a public park to exchange your child. You bring a smartphone to record the interaction, just in case there are any disputes later. Because the park is a public place excluded from the definition of 'private place,' you do not need the other parent's consent to record. The recording captures both parents' voices clearly, but since it is in a public space, it does not violate Michigan's eavesdropping law. If the exchange were to happen inside the other parent's home instead, recording without their consent would be illegal under MCL 750.539d, which prohibits installing or using a device 'for observing, recording, transmitting, photographing, or eavesdropping upon the sounds or events in that place.' If you are the homeowner and record for security purposes, MCL 750.539d(2) allows it unless done for a lewd or lascivious purpose. Always confirm the location, who has privacy rights, and whether you are a participant before pressing record.

Michigan law carves out specific exceptions that allow recording in certain contexts even in private places. For example, a resident or principal occupant may record within their own home for security purposes under MCL 750.539d(2), provided the recording is not done for a lewd or lascivious purpose. This exception is limited strictly to the recorder's own residence and does not extend to other private spaces such as a hotel room, another person's home, a private office, or a vehicle. Additionally, the statute does not distinguish between in-person conversations and telephone or electronic communications; MCL 750.539c applies broadly to any 'private conversation' regardless of medium. However, the participant exception allows a person to record their own conversation without consent, whether in person or over the phone. These nuances mean that while some recordings are clearly permitted, others require careful attention to the location, the parties involved, and the purpose of the recording.