Recording Law for Voiceprints & Biometric Data in South Carolina

South Carolina’s wiretap law is a one-party-consent rule. That means you can legally record any conversation you are part of without telling the other people. The law itself says it’s okay to intercept a communication if you are a party to it or if one party has given prior consent. This applies to in-person chats, phone calls, and other electronic exchanges. The exact wording in the statute is: "It is lawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception."

Not everything is fair game. The same statute carves out a specific category of speech from its privacy protections. It defines an "oral communication" as one where a person shows an expectation the chat won’t be intercepted, but it explicitly excludes "any public oral communication uttered at a public meeting." In plain terms, if the conversation happens at a city council hearing, school board meeting, or other official gathering open to the public, South Carolina’s wiretap law does not treat it as a private conversation. The exclusion applies only to communications uttered at a public meeting, not to every loud argument on a city sidewalk.

South Carolina’s wiretap law only protects conversations where someone shows they expect privacy and the circumstances justify that expectation. The statute sets a two-part test: the speaker must exhibit an expectation the chat won’t be intercepted, and the situation must objectively justify that expectation. For example, a quiet conversation in a private office would likely meet the test, while a loud argument on a crowded street corner probably would not. The law also says the protection ends if the chat is a "public oral communication uttered at a public meeting." If the conversation doesn’t clear this privacy gate, the one-party-consent rule doesn’t apply because the law doesn’t regulate it in the first place.

Federal courts have made clear that recording on-duty police performing their duties in public is protected speech under the First Amendment. The Fourth Circuit, which covers South Carolina, reached that conclusion in Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep’t, 59 F.4th 674 (4th Cir. 2023). However, South Carolina has no state statute or published court decision that squarely addresses recording police. The state’s wiretap law applies to conversations, but it doesn’t single out police speech. Because of that gap, the safest approach is to treat police recordings as a case-by-case matter rather than assuming blanket permission. If you’re recording an officer in a public place, keep the device in plain view and don’t ignore any on-scene order to stop recording.

South Carolina’s one-party-consent rule applies no matter where the conversation happens, but that doesn’t automatically make home recordings risk-free. The state also has a separate law against invasion of privacy using recording devices in private places. That law makes it a crime to spy on or invade someone’s privacy on another person’s premises using video or audio equipment, regardless of sexual motive. Because this law hasn’t been tested in court for everyday home recordings, the conservative approach is to get clear consent from the person in charge of the home before recording inside it. If you’re a guest and the host doesn’t know you’re recording, treat it as off-limits unless you’re certain the host has agreed.

South Carolina’s wiretap chapter regulates interception of "wire, oral, or electronic communication," all of which involve the aural transfer of information. Silent video recording with no audio does not "intercept" any "communication" as defined in the statute, so it falls outside the wiretap law entirely. The only state statute that reaches image or video capture as such is the "Eavesdropping, peeping, voyeurism" statute, § 16-17-470. That statute has two operative prongs: subsection (A) criminalizes peeping "for the purpose of spying upon or invading the privacy of the persons spied upon" using video or audio equipment on or about the premises of another, with no sexual-gratification element; subsection (B) requires both a sexual purpose and a reasonable expectation of privacy. Capturing video of a public dispute or police interaction would not meet subsection (B)’s elements, but covert non-sexual video recording that invades someone’s privacy on another’s premises could still be reached by subsection (A).

If you illegally intercept a private conversation under South Carolina’s wiretap law, you face both criminal and civil penalties. Criminally, it is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. There is also a misdemeanor carve-out for certain communications. Civilly, you can be sued for up to $500 per day or $25,000, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorney fees, actual damages, and punitive damages. These penalties apply only if the conversation was private and met the law’s privacy test under § 17-30-15(2).

South Carolina’s wiretap law provides a private right of action for anyone whose communications are illegally intercepted. A successful plaintiff can recover the greater of $500 per day or $25,000, plus reasonable attorney fees, actual damages, and punitive damages. The statute does not require proof of actual damages to recover statutory damages, making it easier to bring a claim.

South Carolina’s wiretap law includes several important exceptions. First, it does not apply to "public oral communication uttered at a public meeting," removing wiretap protection for communications made at official gatherings open to the public. Second, it does not regulate silent video recording without audio. Third, it expressly allows lawful interceptions by a party to the communication or with one party’s consent. Finally, it does not apply to communications where the speaker does not exhibit a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances.

South Carolina’s ethics rules impose stricter limits on lawyers than the state’s wiretap law. The South Carolina Bar has long held that undisclosed recording by a lawyer acting in a professional capacity violates Rule 8.4(d) of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. This per se rule originates in a line of South Carolina Supreme Court decisions, including In re Anonymous Member of the S.C. Bar, 322 S.E.2d 667 (S.C. 1984), which the court itself described as addressing a question 'not one of first impression.' The rule was later narrowed in Ethics Advisory Opinion 08-13 (2008) to allow undisclosed recording by a lawyer acting purely as a private citizen, provided the recording is otherwise lawful under state law. The only recognized exception is recording made at the request of a law-enforcement agency in a legitimate criminal investigation.

Imagine you’re a freelancer meeting a client at their office to finalize a contract. You’re both negotiating terms and you decide to record the meeting on your phone to make sure you don’t miss any details. Under South Carolina law, this is legal because you’re a party to the conversation and the state’s one-party-consent rule allows it. The recording happens in a private office, but the wiretap law doesn’t require notice or consent from the other person. The conversation isn’t at a public meeting, so the public-meeting exception doesn’t apply. Just be aware that if you later use the recording in a way that misrepresents what was said, you could face separate legal trouble unrelated to the recording itself.

Two neighbors get into a loud argument on a city sidewalk. One neighbor pulls out a phone and records the exchange. Under South Carolina law, this recording is not regulated by the wiretap statute because the conversation does not meet the statutory definition of an "oral communication." The neighbors were in a public place, and the circumstances did not justify a reasonable expectation of privacy. The one-party-consent rule therefore does not apply. However, if the neighbors step into a recessed doorway or otherwise create a semi-enclosed space, the analysis changes and the recording may implicate the wiretap law.

South Carolina has no enacted biometric-privacy statute. Two dedicated biometric-privacy bills have died in committee across prior legislative sessions: H.4812 (123rd Gen. Assembly, 2019–2020) and H.3063 (124th Gen. Assembly, 2021–2022). A broader privacy bill, H.3401 (126th Gen. Assembly, 2025–2026), remains stalled in the House Judiciary Committee with no action since January 14, 2025. If enacted as currently drafted, H.3401 would define and cover biometric data as "sensitive data" but would not create a private right of action, reserving enforcement to the Attorney General. South Carolina’s existing breach-notification statute, § 39-1-90, does not include biometric data in its definition of "personal identifying information," so it provides no protection for voiceprints or other biometric identifiers. The Insurance Data Security Act, § 38-99-10(11), lists "biometric records" as an element of "nonpublic information," but that chapter applies only to licensed insurance entities and their vendors, not to general consumer products.