Recording Law for Recording at Home in Oregon

Oregon’s wiretap statute, ORS 165.540(3), creates a broad homeowner’s exception: the usual rule that all participants in a conversation must agree before it can be recorded does not apply to a subscriber to a telecommunication or radio service or to a member of that subscriber’s family when the recording act occurs in their home. The exception reaches all three prohibited-act categories — telecommunications/radio interception, line-tampering, and in-person conversation recording — and applies regardless of who is speaking or whether the recording device is connected to a phone service. Three Oregon Court of Appeals decisions confirm this is read broadly: in State v. Evensen, 298 Or App 294, 447 P3d 23 (2019), the court held the exception applies to subscribers and family members who, in their homes, engage in conduct otherwise prohibited by ORS 165.540(1)(c), regardless of whether the subscribed-to service is utilized to obtain the conversation; in State v. Rainey, 294 Or App 284, 431 P3d 98 (2018), the court held the exception turns on where the recording act occurs, not where the conversation itself takes place; and in Checkley v. Boyd, 198 Or App 110, 107 P3d 651 (2005), the court held the exception covers a person who was not a participant in the phone calls at all. Net effect: within their own home, a telecom/radio subscriber or their family member can lawfully audio-record essentially any conversation or call they can access there — their own conversation, a family member’s conversation, even a call or conversation between two other people — without notice or consent to anyone, and can also use the resulting recording. This is a considerably broader carve-out than 'your home is just another location'; it is an affirmative, judicially-confirmed home-recording privilege tied to subscriber/family status and the location of the recording device, not to who is being recorded.

If you record a conversation in someone else’s home, Oregon’s general all-party notice rule applies: everyone taking part must be told the conversation is being recorded. The Oregon Court of Appeals has confirmed that the homeowner’s exception is strictly limited to recordings made by a resident, owner, subscriber, or immediate family member inside their own residence; it does not extend to recordings made in another person’s home, a hotel room, or a space the wearer is merely visiting. The law treats recordings in another person’s home the same as any other private conversation, with no exception just because the setting is a private residence. So if you are visiting a friend and record a conversation, you must inform everyone involved or you could face penalties.

Oregon requires that all participants in an in-person conversation be specifically told the conversation is being recorded under ORS 165.540(1)(c). The law defines a 'conversation' in ORS 165.535(1) as 'the transmission between two or more persons of an oral communication which is not a telecommunication or a radio communication, and includes a communication occurring through a video conferencing program' — a 2021 amendment moved video-conferencing calls (Zoom/Teams/FaceTime-style calls) out of the one-party-friendly 'telecommunication'/'radio communication' bucket and into the all-party-notice 'conversation' bucket. This rule applies to in-person conversations and video calls regardless of where they occur — a café, a park, or a private home you are visiting. The only exceptions are a narrow list of public or semi-public proceedings enumerated in ORS 165.540(6)(a), such as government hearings, trials, press conferences, public speeches, rallies, sporting events, regularly scheduled classes, and private meetings where all others knew or reasonably should have known the recording was being made. If you record someone without telling them in a setting not on that list, you could be breaking the law.

Recording a conversation without giving all participants notice is a Class A misdemeanor in Oregon under ORS 165.540(9). The statute also bans using a recording made illegally under ORS 165.540(1)(e). Enforcement is handled by public authorities, as ORS 165.540 does not create a private right of action. Separately, Oregon allows you to record an on-duty police officer if you do it openly, from a lawful place, and the audio is within normal hearing range under ORS 165.540(5)(b); secretly recording a police officer remains a Class A misdemeanor under ORS 165.540(9). The law does not cover silent video-only recording or photography, which are unrestricted.

Oregon allows you to record an on-duty police officer if you do it openly, from a lawful place, and the audio is within normal hearing range under ORS 165.540(5)(b). This exception does not apply if you record secretly. Secretly recording a police officer remains a Class A misdemeanor under ORS 165.540(9) and was upheld en banc by the Ninth Circuit against First Amendment challenges in Project Veritas v. Schmidt, No. 22-35271 (9th Cir. Jan. 7, 2025). The exception is narrow and applies only when the recording is done openly and in plain view, with the recorder in a location they have a legal right to occupy and the audio within normal unaided hearing.

Imagine you are visiting a friend’s apartment and you start recording a conversation between your friend and a neighbor. Since this is not your home, Oregon’s all-party notice rule applies under ORS 165.540(1)(c). If you do not tell both your friend and the neighbor that the conversation is being recorded, you could be breaking the law. The homeowner’s exception only covers recordings made in your own home or by an immediate family member there. Recording in someone else’s home is treated the same as any other private conversation.

Oregon sharply splits its rules by communication channel. Under ORS 165.540(1)(a), ordinary phone calls (landline or cellular) are effectively one-party-consent: a participant who records their own phone call falls outside the statute’s restriction because they are not 'a person... not a participant,' so nothing in the statute requires them to notify or get consent from the other party. By contrast, ORS 165.540(1)(c) governs in-person conversations and requires all participants to be specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained. A 2021 amendment (Or Laws 2021, c.357) moved video-conferencing calls out of the one-party-friendly 'telecommunication'/'radio communication' bucket and into the all-party-notice 'conversation' bucket: ORS 165.535(1) now defines 'conversation' to expressly 'include[] a communication occurring through a video conferencing program,' while ORS 165.535(3)(b) and (4)(b) expressly exclude video-conferencing communications from the 'radio communication' and 'telecommunication' definitions. Net effect: an ordinary voice phone call is effectively one-party-consent under (1)(a), but a video call taken through a video-conferencing app is treated like an in-person conversation and requires all-party notice under (1)(c).