Recording Law for Recording in Public in Michigan

Michigan’s eavesdropping law, MCL 750.539c, makes it a felony to record a private conversation without the consent of all parties. The statute defines a ‘private place’ in MCL 750.539a(1) as somewhere you can reasonably expect privacy, but it explicitly excludes places open to the public: ‘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.’ That means if you’re recording in a park, on a sidewalk, in a store, or at a restaurant, the law treats it as outside the ‘private place’ definition. So in these public settings, the all-party consent rule doesn’t apply to conversations you’re part of because courts have held that a participant recording their own conversation isn’t eavesdropping. Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982), ruled that the statute’s language excludes participant recordings because the definition of ‘eavesdrop’ or ‘eavesdropping’ reaches only the ‘private discourse of others.’ The key is whether the location is truly public and whether the conversation is happening where anyone could overhear it naturally.

Michigan law draws a clear line between public and private spaces. A public place includes parks, sidewalks, streets, and businesses open to customers during business hours, like stores and restaurants. The statute says these places are not ‘private’ because they fall outside the definition in MCL 750.539a(1): ‘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.’ The law doesn’t require the space to be crowded—just accessible to the public or a substantial group of the public. Courts have applied this definition broadly. In Lewis v. LeGrow, 258 Mich. App. 175 (2003), the court used the ‘private place’ definition from MCL 750.539a(1) to decide whether a hidden camera in a bedroom was illegal. That same definition excludes public spaces from the eavesdropping statute. So if you’re recording in a public place, the law generally doesn’t restrict your ability to capture what’s happening.

If you’re part of the conversation, Michigan law treats your recording as legal because courts have held that a participant recording their own conversation isn’t eavesdropping. The eavesdropping statute defines ‘eavesdrop’ or ‘eavesdropping’ as overhearing, recording, amplifying, or transmitting any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse. Sullivan v. Gray, 117 Mich. App. 476 (1982), ruled that the statute’s language excludes participant recordings: a participant recording their own conversation is not eavesdropping because the conversation is not the ‘discourse of others.’ So if you’re talking to someone in a store, park, or restaurant, you can legally record that conversation without telling the other person. This applies even if the conversation turns private, as long as it’s happening in a public place where others could overhear it naturally.

Recording someone else’s conversation in a public place is not restricted by Michigan’s eavesdropping statute because the location falls outside the ‘private place’ definition in MCL 750.539a(1): ‘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.’ Stores, parks, sidewalks, and similar spaces are not ‘private places’ under the statute, so the all-party consent rule in MCL 750.539c does not apply. However, recording others’ conversations in public may still raise other legal or social concerns, so it’s best to record openly when possible.

Recording police officers performing their public duties in public places is not explicitly barred by Michigan law. The eavesdropping statute’s ‘private place’ definition in MCL 750.539a(1) excludes public spaces, and courts have applied this definition broadly. However, Michigan is in the Sixth Circuit, which has not issued a published, binding decision recognizing a general right to record police in public. The only on-point authority, Crawford v. Geiger (unpublished), is persuasive only and doesn’t set a clear rule. So while recording police in public is generally understood to be lawful in Michigan (no statutory bar and outside the eavesdropping statute’s ‘private place’ scope), 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’re recording police, do it openly, in a public place, and don’t interfere with their duties. If the situation is unclear or you’re on private property, pause and consult a lawyer before recording.

Imagine you’re in a store parking lot when two people start arguing loudly near their cars. You pull out your phone and record the exchange because you want to document what happens. The store is open, the parking lot is public, and the conversation is loud enough that others nearby could hear it. Under Michigan law, this recording is not restricted by the eavesdropping statute because the parking lot is a public place under MCL 750.539a(1), which excludes ‘a place to which the public or substantial group of the public has access.’ You’re not part of the conversation, but you’re recording in a public place where the conversation isn’t private. If the argument escalates and police arrive, you can continue recording as long as you stay in the public area and don’t interfere. This is a straightforward application of Michigan’s public-place exception.

Michigan law explicitly allows residents to record inside their own home for security purposes without the consent of others present. MCL 750.539d(2) provides that the device-installation/recording prohibition in MCL 750.539d(1) ‘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 a homeowner or principal occupant may install and use audio and video recording devices within their own home without notifying guests or obtaining their consent, except when the purpose is sexual. The statute expressly carves out this exception for the recorder’s own residence and does not extend it to other private spaces like a hotel room, another person’s home, or a private office.

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,’ and this prohibition applies even if no audio is captured. Lewis v. LeGrow, 258 Mich. App. 175 (2003), applied this to a video-only hidden-camera bedroom recording. However, because a ‘private place’ by definition excludes places accessible to the public, video-only recording of incidents or disputes 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’ — silent video with no sound capture does not implicate 539c.