Recording Law for Voiceprints & Biometric Data in Tennessee

Tennessee’s wiretap law allows you to record any conversation you take part in without telling the other person. The key statute is Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-13-601, which makes it lawful to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties has given prior consent, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act. Tennessee courts apply this rule after first asking whether the speaker had a reasonable expectation that the conversation wouldn’t be recorded. If that expectation exists—like when people speak quietly behind a closed door—then the recording must stop unless everyone agrees. But if the conversation is loud or happens in a public place where anyone nearby could naturally overhear, no consent is required under the wiretap law. Tennessee’s cellular/cordless-phone-specific interception statute (§ 39-13-604) follows the same one-party-consent standard and imposes its own penalty range for violations: a Class A misdemeanor for basic violations and a Class E felony if the intercepted communication is disseminated. The law does not create separate rules for recording at home versus in public; the deciding factor is whether a reasonable expectation of privacy applied at the time of the recording.

Tennessee uses a two-part test to decide whether a conversation has a reasonable expectation of privacy. First, the speaker must have actually expected the conversation wouldn’t be recorded. Second, the circumstances must justify that expectation. A loud argument on a public sidewalk generally does not meet this test, but a hushed conversation in a closed office or behind a closed door does. Tennessee courts have not issued a definitive ruling on every scenario, so the outcome often depends on the specific facts. For example, a conversation in a restaurant booth with drawn curtains may carry a reasonable expectation of privacy, while the same conversation at an outdoor table likely would not. When in doubt, treat the conversation as protected and stop recording unless you have consent. Tennessee’s reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test is codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-303, which defines "oral communication" as one "uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying that expectation." The appellate decision in Mimms v. Mimms, 780 S.W.2d 739 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989), illustrates the distinction between overhearing a conversation naturally and intercepting it with a device, though the fact pattern attributed to the case (recording near an open garage window) is unconfirmed against the primary opinion text and should be treated as unverified characterization only.

Tennessee does not have a published appeals-court decision that squarely recognizes a First Amendment right to record on-duty police officers in public. The Sixth Circuit, which covers Tennessee, has only issued an unpublished, non-binding decision (Crawford v. Geiger, 656 F. App'x 190 (6th Cir. 2016)) suggesting such a right may exist; however, the district court rejected the recording-related First Amendment claim and the Sixth Circuit did not disturb it. Because of this, treating an officer’s objection or order to stop recording as controlling is the safer approach. If an officer tells you to stop recording or moves to seize your device, pause the recording and seek legal guidance before continuing. This is especially important in tense or uncertain situations where an officer’s reaction could escalate the encounter. Tennessee’s wiretap statute applies the same one-party-consent rule to police-citizen encounters in public settings where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, but the constitutional overlay remains unsettled.

Starting July 1, 2025, Tennessee’s consumer privacy law—the Tennessee Information Protection Act (TIPA)—regulates biometric data, including voiceprints, as "sensitive data." Before capturing or storing a voiceprint for identification purposes, you must get the person’s opt-in consent. TIPA also requires a data protection assessment before processing sensitive data like voiceprints. Enforcement is handled exclusively by the Attorney General; there is no private right of action, and violations carry penalties up to $7,500 per violation, trebled to $22,500 if the violation is knowing or willful. TIPA defines "biometric data" to include voiceprints, but it also excludes "audio recording" from that definition, creating an unresolved tension when a voiceprint is derived from an audio recording. TIPA’s applicability threshold is unsettled: the Tennessee General Assembly’s own bill-tracking summary describes a ≥100,000 Tennessee consumer threshold, while several compliance sources describe a $25 million annual revenue floor combined with either ≥175,000 Tennessee consumers or ≥25,000 consumers where more than 50% of gross revenue comes from selling personal information. Before relying on either threshold, verify the current codified text.

Tennessee’s wiretap statute includes a longstanding parental-monitoring carve-out at § 39-13-601(d), allowing parents to install software solely to monitor a minor child’s internet use without triggering the one-party-consent rule. Separately, § 39-13-604 governs interception of cellular or cordless phone communications and sets its own penalty structure: a Class A misdemeanor for basic violations and a Class E felony if the intercepted communication is disseminated, though it does not alter the underlying one-party-consent standard. Tennessee’s voyeurism statute (§ 39-13-605) criminalizes photography or video taken for sexual arousal or gratification where the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy, but it does not create a general restriction on recording inside a home or during police interactions. In 2024, the legislature repealed the civil-damages provision (§ 39-13-603) that had previously allowed private lawsuits for illegal interception, leaving criminal prosecution as the sole remedy for wiretap violations.

Imagine you’re wearing a device that records audio and you’re standing in a grocery store parking lot when two people near you start arguing loudly. One person yells, "I never agreed to this," while the other responds, "Everyone can hear you—just drop it." Because the argument is loud enough that passersby could naturally overhear, no one in the conversation has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Under Tennessee’s wiretap law, you may record the argument without consent. However, if the argument moves behind a closed car door where voices are muffled, the situation changes. Now, the speakers may have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and recording without consent could violate the wiretap statute. In that case, stop recording or get consent before continuing. Tennessee’s reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test applies the same gate-then-consent structure whether the setting is public or semi-public. The test is codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-6-303 and has been applied in cases such as Mimms v. Mimms, 780 S.W.2d 739 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1989), which addresses the distinction between overhearing a conversation naturally and intercepting it with a device.

Recording a conversation without required consent in Tennessee can lead to criminal charges. A violation of the wiretap statute is a felony under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-602, with penalties set by that section. Separately, under TIPA, the Attorney General can bring civil actions for improper handling of biometric data, including voiceprints, with fines up to $7,500 per violation, trebled to $22,500 for knowing or willful violations. TIPA does not allow private lawsuits, so only the Attorney General can enforce its biometric-data rules. The wiretap law, by contrast, allows criminal prosecution but does not create a private right of action. In practice, this means you’re more likely to face government enforcement for biometric-data issues, while wiretap violations are handled as criminal matters. Tennessee’s cellular/cordless-phone interception statute (§ 39-13-604) imposes Class A misdemeanor penalties for basic violations and elevates to a Class E felony if the intercepted communication is disseminated.