Under Arkansas recording laws, you can legally record a phone call or in-person conversation as long as you are part of it, or at least one participant has agreed to the recording. Arkansas is a one-party consent state. That rule, set out in Arkansas Code 5-60-120, covers wire, landline, oral, telephonic, and wireless communications. Recording a conversation you aren’t part of, without permission from anyone in it, is a Class A misdemeanor carrying up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine. Video recording, public spaces, and calls that cross state lines each follow their own rules.
How One-Party Consent Works
If you’re on the call or in the room, you are the consenting party. You don’t have to tell the others you’re recording. That applies whether the conversation is on a phone, in person, or over a wireless connection.
The rule flips when you aren’t a participant. Planting a recorder in a room to capture other people’s conversation, tapping a phone line you’re not on, or using software to intercept calls between other people all violate Arkansas Code 5-60-120 unless at least one of the people involved gave prior consent.
Audio Recording Versus Video Recording
Arkansas Code 5-60-120 is about intercepting communications, which means audio. Silent video in a public place does not fall under it. A security camera without a microphone in a business lobby raises a different legal question than recording what people say.
Video becomes a crime under a separate statute when it’s secret and the subject is in private. Arkansas Code 5-16-101 makes it illegal to use an image-recording device to secretly observe, photograph, or film someone who is in a private area out of public view, has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and has not consented. The statute also addresses drones, hidden cameras, and disguised equipment used to secretly record someone’s body where they reasonably expect privacy.
Penalties for video voyeurism are much heavier than for unlawful audio recording. A first or second offense is a Class D felony. A third offense, or any offense where the victim is under fourteen, is a Class C felony. Distributing the recording, including posting it online, can elevate a related Class B misdemeanor charge under the statute’s second subsection to a Class A misdemeanor.
Exceptions Built Into the Statute
Arkansas Code 5-60-120 lists several situations where the consent rule doesn’t apply in the usual way.
Law Enforcement
The statute says it is “not unlawful for the act to be committed by a person acting under the color of law.” That covers officers and other government agents performing official duties. Courts can also issue orders for disclosure of customer communications to a government entity during a criminal investigation, consistent with the federal Stored Communications Act, and can authorize pen registers and trap-and-trace devices.
Telecommunications Providers
Phone company employees and other telecom staff can intercept communications when doing so is necessary to provide service or protect the company’s rights and property. They can also assist law enforcement acting under color of law. Telecommunications services themselves are exempt from the recording restrictions.
Amateur Radio and Scanners
FCC-licensed amateur radio operators are exempt entirely. Anyone operating a police scanner can intercept those communications freely, as long as the purpose is personal enjoyment rather than something illegal.
Recording in Public and Recording Police
Arkansas Code 21-1-106 protects your right to record in public. A public officer or employee cannot stop you from using a recording device in a place open to the general public, or on private property where you are lawfully present, except in narrow situations:
- The act of recording or where you are standing creates a genuine physical safety hazard for others present (not yourself).
- You are inside a public drinking water treatment facility and the recording poses a risk to that facility.
- The recording itself is part of committing a crime.
- The recording could reasonably lead to copyright infringement.
- The recording appears to circumvent procedures that normally require permission or payment to view or copy data.
- Your presence while recording unreasonably blocks or interferes with another person’s lawful movement.
The same statute bars public officers from deleting data from your device against your wishes unless the data is contraband, and from seizing your device unless it appears to be involved in a crime or an emergency justifies the seizure.
Filming police in public has additional protection under federal case law. The Eighth Circuit, which covers Arkansas, has recognized a clearly established right to observe police activity in at least two cases. Eight of the thirteen federal circuits have explicitly recognized a First Amendment right to record law enforcement in public, and no circuit has held the opposite. Reasonable limits still apply, so you can’t physically interfere with officers or tamper with evidence.
What You Face if You Break the Rules
Violating the one-party consent rule under Arkansas Code 5-60-120 is a Class A misdemeanor. The maximum sentence is one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.
Video voyeurism under Arkansas Code 5-16-101 carries much heavier consequences. A first or second conviction under the main subsection is a Class D felony, punishable by up to six years in prison. A third conviction, or one involving a victim under fourteen, is a Class C felony, with up to ten years. Provisions covering distribution of the recording start as a Class B misdemeanor but climb to a Class A misdemeanor when the person shared the recording, posted it online, or has a prior conviction under the statute.
Civil Lawsuits Under Federal Law
A criminal charge is not the only exposure. Federal law gives anyone whose communications were illegally intercepted the right to sue. Under 18 U.S.C. 2520, a victim can recover the greater of actual damages plus any profits the violator made, or statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is larger. Courts can award punitive damages in appropriate cases and must award reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs to a successful plaintiff.
This federal remedy applies even when the recording happened entirely in Arkansas. Someone who illegally records your conversations can face a state criminal charge and a federal civil suit with a damages floor of $10,000.
Calls That Cross State Lines
Arkansas’s one-party consent rule matches the federal standard under 18 U.S.C. 2511, which also permits recording when one party consents. The federal statute adds that even with consent, the recording cannot be made for the purpose of committing a crime or a tort.
About a dozen states require all-party consent, meaning everyone on the call must agree. When a call crosses state lines, the general practice is to follow the stricter state’s law. An Arkansas resident calling someone in California, for example, would be subject to California’s all-party consent requirement. If you don’t know where the other person is, announcing that the call is being recorded is the safest approach. The announcement effectively obtains consent from everyone on the line, whatever state’s law governs.
Recording at Work
An employee in Arkansas can usually record a workplace conversation they are part of, because one-party consent is satisfied. But employers often have their own recording policies, and violating one can still get you fired even when the recording itself is legal under state law.
Employers who monitor employee communications have their own limits. The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act generally prohibits intercepting communications unless the monitoring serves a legitimate business purpose or the employee has consented. Employers get more latitude with company-owned devices and systems, where employees have a reduced expectation of privacy.
The National Labor Relations Board adds another layer. Under the NLRB’s 2023 framework from its Stericycle, Inc. decision, employer policies that restrict workplace recording are presumed to unlawfully chill employees’ rights to engage in protected activity, unless the employer can show the policy serves a legitimate and substantial business interest that cannot be addressed through narrower rules. A January 2026 administrative law judge decision found that a recording policy can survive this scrutiny if it is limited in scope, permits recording devices in non-work areas during non-work time, and avoids blanket bans. Flat no-recording rules backed by discipline or termination are more likely to be struck down.