Recording Law for Phone & Video Calls in Michigan

Michigan’s eavesdropping law treats conversations differently depending on whether you are a participant in the conversation. If you are part of the call, you can record it without telling anyone else. That’s because the statute targets only the "private discourse of others" — meaning someone who isn’t part of the conversation. Courts have read this to exclude participants from the eavesdropping ban because a participant’s own conversation is not the "discourse of others." But if you’re not on the call and you record it, Michigan requires the consent of everyone in the conversation. This is why Michigan is called a "hybrid" consent state: one-party consent applies when you’re a participant, all-party consent applies when you’re not. The core statute is MCL 750.539c, which makes it a felony to "eavesdrop" on a "private conversation" without all parties’ consent. The courts have clarified that participants aren’t eavesdropping on their own conversations, even if they record without telling others — Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982). Michigan’s appellate courts have repeatedly held that the statutory language "unambiguously excludes participant recording from the definition of eavesdropping by limiting the subject conversation to 'the private discourse of others.'" Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982).

Not every phone or video call is protected under Michigan’s privacy law. The law only applies when the conversation happens where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Michigan’s statute defines this as a "private place": a place where you can reasonably expect to be safe from intrusion or surveillance, but not a place the public or a large group has access to. So a call between two people in a private home is private, but a call made in a public park or a busy coffee shop is not. The statute itself says: "'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." MCL 750.539a(1). Michigan courts read the "private conversation" gate through this "private place" definition using a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy standard, citing People v. Stone, 463 Mich. 558, 621 N.W.2d 702 (2001), as the source of this standard. Whether a person can reasonably expect privacy in a conversation "generally will present a question of fact." People v. Stone, 463 Mich. 558, 621 N.W.2d 702 (2001) (quoting People v. Stone). If the call isn’t private, Michigan’s eavesdropping law doesn’t apply at all — you don’t need anyone’s consent to record.

Michigan has a separate provision that restricts recording video or images in a private place, even if you don’t capture sound. 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. This applies even if the device only records video, not audio. However, because MCL 750.539c targets "eavesdrop[ping]" defined as overhearing/recording/transmitting "private discourse," silent video with no sound capture does not implicate the core eavesdropping felony. Lewis v. LeGrow, 258 Mich. App. 175 (2003), applied this distinction to a video-only hidden-camera bedroom recording, confirming that video-only recording in a private place without consent violates MCL 750.539d(1)(a) but does not violate MCL 750.539c. But the law only covers places where someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy — a private home, a bedroom, or a private office, for example. If the video is taken in a public place, this law doesn’t apply. So if you’re recording video of a conversation in your own home, you can do so without telling others. But if you secretly record video of someone else in their home without their consent, that’s illegal under MCL 750.539d(1)(a).

Michigan explicitly allows the owner or principal occupant of a residence to record inside their own home for security purposes without telling anyone else present. The law says: "This subsection 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." MCL 750.539d(2). This means if you’re the owner or principal occupant of your home, you can record audio or video inside your home without the consent of guests or visitors — as long as you’re not doing it for an improper purpose. This exception only applies to your own home, not someone else’s home or a hotel room. There is no comparable blanket exception for recording in someone else’s home or in other private spaces — those remain governed by the general "consent of the person entitled to privacy in that place" rule in MCL 750.539d(1)(a).

If you’re in a public place — like a street, sidewalk, or park — and you record what’s happening around you, Michigan’s eavesdropping law generally doesn’t apply. That’s because public places aren’t considered "private places" under the law. MCL 750.539a(1) excludes places "to which the public or substantial group of the public has access." So if you’re recording a conversation between police officers and someone else in a public space, you don’t need their consent. Recording on-duty police performing public duties in public is lawful in Michigan because it occurs in a non-private place. While there is no published Michigan appellate or Sixth Circuit decision squarely addressing the First Amendment right to record police in public, the statutory framework resolves the issue: if the encounter is in a public place, the eavesdropping statute does not apply. The Sixth Circuit has not issued a published, binding decision recognizing a general public right to record police; the closest 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, holding that police officers themselves have no First Amendment right to record their own misconduct-investigation interviews — not directly on point for a bystander/participant recording police in public, but shows the circuit has not embraced an expansive recording right. If you’re unsure about the specific facts of your situation, consult a lawyer.

Michigan’s eavesdropping statute contains several important exceptions that carve out specific scenarios where recording is permitted even in private settings. First, the law-enforcement exception in 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 exempts POLICE conducting their own surveillance; it is not a restriction on citizens recording police. Second, the statute does not distinguish in-person conversations from telephone/electronic ones — MCL 750.539c applies broadly to any "private conversation" regardless of medium; both Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982), and Fisher v. Perron, 30 F.4th 289 (6th Cir. 2022), applying the participant exception, were phone-call cases. Third, MCL 750.539a(2) separately notes the eavesdropping definition does not modify laws governing interception of messages transmitted by "communications common carriers" (i.e., it doesn't displace federal wiretap-type common-carrier rules), but this is not a distinct consent standard for citizen recording. These exceptions operate alongside the general "private place" and "participant" rules to shape when recording is lawful in Michigan.

Recording a private conversation without the consent of all parties is a felony in Michigan under MCL 750.539c. A violation is punishable by imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine of not more than $2,000, or both. MCL 750.539c. The law applies whether you record in person, over the phone, or through a video call. In addition to criminal penalties, Michigan provides a private right of action under MCL 750.539h, allowing an aggrieved party to sue for damages, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney fees. The statute also contains a civil-remedies provision that authorizes suits for actual damages, exemplary damages of up to $10,000, and reasonable attorney fees and costs. MCL 750.539h. These penalties underscore the importance of understanding when consent is required and when a conversation qualifies as "private" under Michigan law.

Lawyers in Michigan face additional ethical constraints beyond the state’s eavesdropping statute. The State Bar of Michigan’s Ethics Opinion RI-309 (May 12, 1998) holds that whether a lawyer may ethically record a conversation without the consent or prior knowledge of the parties involved is situation specific, not unethical per se, and must be determined on a case-by-case basis. RI-309 expressly overruled the Committee’s own prior opinion, CI-200, and rejected the reasoning of ABA Formal Opinion 337 (1974) as "overly broad." The opinion conditions the analysis on legality and frames the inquiry under MRPC 4.4 (prohibiting use of means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person) and MRPC 8.4(b) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation). A recording made for a legitimate purpose (e.g., to preserve an accurate record) is not per se improper; one made to entrap, harass, or that is accompanied by an actual misrepresentation would run afoul of these rules. Michigan’s classification as a "middle-ground" state reflects this individualized, fact-specific inquiry rather than a blanket rule.