Recording Law for Voiceprints & Biometric Data in Minnesota

Minnesota allows you to record any conversation you take part in without telling the other participants under a one-party consent rule. The rule comes from Minnesota Statutes § 626A.02, which permits intercepting a wire, electronic, or oral communication if you are a party to it or have prior consent from one participant. Minnesota’s wiretap statute does not carve out a special rule for police interactions, so the one-party consent standard applies to them as well. The Eighth Circuit—the federal appeals court covering Minnesota—has sent mixed signals on whether that right is strong enough to protect recording in all public settings. In Chestnut v. Wallace, the court noted in dicta that every other federal appeals court has recognized a right to record police in public, but in Molina v. Book, a divided panel ruled that the right wasn’t "clearly established" at the time, so officers received qualified immunity when they interfered with recording. An older case, Akins v. Knight, took a narrower view and focused on a police station lobby, a non-public space. Because of this split, recording an on-duty officer is generally permitted under Minnesota’s wiretap statute, but pushing back when an officer objects can lead to legal uncertainty. Minnesota’s highest court has not issued a decision specifically construing the statute’s "justified expectation" language in the recording-device context, so the statutory text governs.

Minnesota’s wiretap statute protects "oral communications" only when the speaker has an expectation that the words won’t be intercepted and the circumstances justify that expectation. This comes from Minnesota Statutes § 626A.01, subdivision 4, which defines "oral communication" as any spoken exchange where the speaker exhibits an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation. The law’s coverage turns on this hybrid subjective/objective test, not on location alone. Phone calls and electronic messages are covered by the statute without any privacy-expectation qualifier. If a conversation does not qualify as an "oral communication" under this test, Minnesota’s one-party consent rule does not apply to it.

Federal appellate decisions in circuits covering Minnesota have recognized a First Amendment right to observe police performing official duties in public, and some have suggested a related right to record them. However, the Eighth Circuit—the federal appeals court covering Minnesota—has sent mixed signals on whether that right is strong enough to protect recording in all public settings. In Chestnut v. Wallace, the court noted in dicta that every other federal appeals court has recognized a right to record police in public, but in Molina v. Book, a divided panel ruled that the right wasn’t "clearly established" at the time, so officers received qualified immunity when they interfered with recording. An older case, Akins v. Knight, took a narrower view and focused on a police station lobby, a non-public space. Because of this split, recording an on-duty officer is generally permitted under Minnesota’s wiretap statute, but pushing back when an officer objects can lead to legal uncertainty. Minnesota’s wiretap statute itself does not carve out a special rule for police, so the one-party consent rule and the "oral communication" privacy-expectation limitation govern police recording.

Minnesota does not have a dedicated biometric-specific statute like Illinois’ BIPA; instead, biometric voiceprints are regulated as a category of "sensitive data" under the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act (MCDPA), which is effective July 31, 2025. Under Minnesota Statutes § 325M.11, "biometric data" includes a voiceprint used to identify a specific person. The MCDPA prohibits processing sensitive data—such as a voiceprint used for identification—without the person’s explicit consent. Consent must be "freely given, specific, informed, and unambiguous," and it cannot be obtained via broad terms-of-use acceptance, dark patterns, or passive acts like hovering, muting, or closing a notice. If consent is withdrawn, processing must cease within 15 days. The law applies only to larger entities: those that (1) control or process personal data of 100,000 or more Minnesota consumers per year (excluding data processed solely to complete a payment transaction), or (2) control or process 25,000 or more consumers’ data and derive more than 25% of gross revenue from data sales. Smaller entities are not covered. Enforcement is handled solely by the Minnesota Attorney General, which may seek civil penalties up to $7,500 per violation. There is no private right of action; only the Attorney General may bring suit. A 30-day cure/warning-letter precondition applies before suit, but this precondition expires January 31, 2026.

Imagine you are recording a loud argument between two people on a city sidewalk using a device you are wearing. Because the conversation occurs in a public place and the speakers are talking at a volume audible to bystanders, the statutory test for an "oral communication" is unlikely to be satisfied. Under Minnesota’s one-party consent rule, you may record without telling them. However, if you later extract a voiceprint from the recording to identify one of the speakers for identification purposes, the voiceprint becomes biometric data that is treated as "sensitive data" under the MCDPA. That means you need the speaker’s explicit consent before processing the voiceprint for identification purposes. If the same conversation happened inside a closed office with the door shut, or if one person lowered their voice and stepped away from others, the law’s "justified expectation" test may be satisfied, requiring consent before any recording.

Violating Minnesota’s wiretap law can trigger both criminal and civil penalties. Minnesota Statutes § 626A.13 creates a private right of action, allowing anyone whose conversation was illegally recorded to sue for damages and seek an injunction. The statute also sets a mixed penalty structure: up to $20,000 and five years in prison for a felony-level offense under subdivision 4(a), up to 364 days and a fine for a gross misdemeanor under subdivision 4(b)(1), or a fine up to $500 for a lesser offense under subdivision 4(b)(2). Under the Minnesota Consumer Data Privacy Act, the Attorney General may bring civil penalties up to $7,500 per violation, but there is no private right of action and enforcement is limited to the Attorney General. Before filing suit, the Attorney General must provide a 30-day warning, though this cure period expires January 31, 2026. For voiceprints, processing must stop and data must be deleted within 15 days after consent is withdrawn.

Minnesota’s one-party consent rule applies the same regardless of location, including inside your own home. The wiretap statute does not add a stricter rule just because the conversation occurs indoors. However, if someone in the home manifests a preference that the exchange not be overheard or recorded—such as asking you not to record, lowering their voice, or moving to a secluded area—the law’s "justified expectation" test for oral communications may apply. In such cases, consent may be required before recording.