Recording Law for Police & Civil Rights in Michigan

In Michigan, you can record on-duty police officers in public places like streets, sidewalks, or parks because these locations are not considered "private places" under Michigan’s eavesdropping laws. The law defines a "private place" in MCL 750.539a(1) as somewhere you reasonably expect privacy, which excludes places to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access. For example, if officers are directing traffic on a public road or making an arrest in a park, you can record as long as you stay out of their way. Michigan has no statute that bars recording police in public, and the Sixth Circuit has not issued a published, binding decision recognizing a general First Amendment right to record police in public; the only on-point authority, Crawford v. Geiger, 656 F. App'x 190 (6th Cir. 2016), is unpublished and persuasive only. Recording police performing public duties in public generally falls outside the eavesdropping statute's reach.

Michigan’s eavesdropping law, MCL 750.539c, makes it a felony to record a "private conversation" without the consent of all parties. The statute does not define "private conversation" directly; instead, it defines a "private place" and "eavesdrop" in terms that Michigan courts read together to require a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy gate. Under People v. Stone, 463 Mich. 558, 621 N.W.2d 702 (2001) (as cited in Lewis v. LeGrow, 258 Mich. App. 175 (2003)), a conversation is private only if it occurs where a participant has a reasonable expectation of privacy, which the statute anchors to the "private place" definition excluding places with public access. Separately, the statute’s definition of "eavesdrop" targets the "private discourse of others," so a participant recording their own conversation is categorically outside the definition and needs no consent. For example, if officers step aside to speak quietly among themselves away from the public, that part of the conversation could be considered private; if they’re speaking loudly in a public area so an ordinary bystander can hear, it likely isn’t. The law also clarifies that a participant in a conversation can record their own words without violating the eavesdropping statute.

You can record video of police in public without their consent, but adding audio changes the analysis. Michigan’s hidden-device law, MCL 750.539d(1)(a), makes it a felony to install, place, or use a device to observe, record, transmit, photograph, or eavesdrop upon sounds or events in a private place without consent. Because a "private place" excludes places to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access, video-only recording in public is allowed. However, if you record audio of a private conversation—even in a public place—you could run afoul of the eavesdropping law. For instance, filming a traffic stop is generally fine, but secretly recording officers talking quietly in a squad car could violate the law if the conversation qualifies as private under the statute’s reasonable-expectation-of-privacy gate.

Michigan explicitly allows residents to record inside their own homes for security without telling others present. MCL 750.539d(2) states that the device-installation/recording prohibition in MCL 750.539d(1) does not apply to security monitoring in a residence conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant, unless conducted for a lewd or lascivious purpose. This carve-out covers both video and audio. For example, if you set up a camera inside your house to monitor activity, you don’t need anyone’s permission to record. This rule is strictly confined to the recorder’s own home and does not extend to other private spaces like a hotel room, a neighbor’s house, a friend’s apartment, or a vehicle—those remain subject to the general eavesdropping laws.

Recording a private conversation without consent in Michigan can lead to felony charges under MCL 750.539c. The statute also provides for a private right of action under MCL 750.539h: anyone harmed by the recording can sue for damages and reasonable attorney fees. These penalties apply only if the recording violates the law’s definition of a private conversation or occurs in a private place. Recording police in public does not trigger these penalties because public places are not private places under the statute’s definition.

Imagine you’re pulled over by police on a public street. You pull out your phone and start recording the interaction. The officers are speaking loudly enough for bystanders to hear, and you’re standing on the sidewalk. This is generally allowed because the location is public and the conversation is not private under the statute’s reasonable-expectation-of-privacy gate. Now imagine the officers step away and speak quietly among themselves. If you record that quiet conversation, you could be violating the law because it may qualify as a private conversation depending on the circumstances. The key difference is whether the officers are speaking in a way that’s audible to the general public or only to each other, and whether the location otherwise qualifies as a private place.

Michigan’s eavesdropping statute includes several exceptions. Law-enforcement officers acting in their official duties are exempt from the prohibitions when conducting their own surveillance under MCL 750.539g. Silent video recording made in a private place without consent is restricted by MCL 750.539d(1)(a), but the statute expressly excludes places to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access, so video-only recording of incidents occurring in public is not restricted. The statute also does not displace federal wiretap-type rules for messages transmitted by communications common carriers under MCL 750.539a(2), preserving federal law governing interception of telephone and electronic communications.