Michigan recording laws let you record any conversation you are a party to without telling anyone else on the line or in the room. Secretly recording a private conversation you are not part of is a different matter: that’s a felony under MCL 750.539c, carrying up to two years in prison and a $2,000 fine. Everything else in Michigan’s eavesdropping framework flows from that single distinction between participant and eavesdropper.
The One-Party Consent Rule
Michigan’s eavesdropping statutes run from MCL 750.539a through 750.539j. The definition of “eavesdrop” covers overhearing, recording, amplifying, or transmitting “the private discourse of others” without permission from everyone involved.1Michigan Legislature. MCL Section 750.539a Two words in that phrase do the work: “of others.”
In Sullivan v. Gray (1982), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the statute “unambiguously excludes participant recording from the definition of eavesdropping” because it only covers the discourse of others. If you’re in the conversation, you aren’t a third party eavesdropping on it.2Justia Law. Sullivan v Gray, 1982, Michigan Court of Appeals That reading is why Michigan operates as a one-party consent state even though the literal text of the statute references “all parties.”
The Michigan Supreme Court added another limit in People v. Stone (2001). The statute only reaches “private” conversations, meaning ones where the participants had a reasonable expectation of privacy. A conversation on a public sidewalk or in a crowded restaurant doesn’t qualify. Where the conversation happened, who was around, and what steps the speakers took to keep it private all matter.
Hidden Cameras and Audio in Private Places
Audio recording and visual surveillance sit under separate provisions. MCL 750.539c covers audio recording of private conversations you aren’t part of.3Michigan Legislature. MCL Section 750.539c MCL 750.539d reaches further, prohibiting the installation or use of any device to observe, record, photograph, or eavesdrop on events in a “private place” without the consent of the people entitled to privacy there. That covers hidden cameras, not just audio bugs. A private place is defined as somewhere a person can “reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance,” but does not include places open to the public.4Michigan Legislature. MCL Section 750.539d
There is one carve-out worth knowing. Security monitoring in a residence is allowed if it’s conducted by or at the direction of the owner or principal occupant, unless the purpose is voyeuristic.4Michigan Legislature. MCL Section 750.539d A homeowner can put cameras inside their own home. A landlord filming a tenant’s bedroom cannot claim the exception. In Lewis v. LeGrow (2003), the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict against a man who secretly videotaped sexual encounters in his bedroom, holding that a bedroom is inherently a private place and that consent to an intimate act does not imply consent to being recorded.
Criminal Penalties
Illegal recording in Michigan is a felony, not a misdemeanor. The specific charges break down like this:
- Eavesdropping on a private conversation under MCL 750.539c: up to two years in state prison, a fine up to $2,000, or both.3Michigan Legislature. MCL Section 750.539c
- Installing or using a recording device in a private place under MCL 750.539d: up to two years in state prison, a fine up to $2,000, or both.4Michigan Legislature. MCL Section 750.539d
- Using or divulging illegally obtained recordings under MCL 750.539e: up to two years in state prison, a fine up to $2,000, or both. This applies even if you didn’t make the recording. Knowingly sharing or using information you know was illegally captured is its own separate crime.5Michigan Legislature. MCL Section 750.539e
That third category catches more people than they expect. If a friend or coworker sends you a recording and you have reason to believe it was made illegally, forwarding it or using it against someone can bring a felony charge even though you had nothing to do with capturing it.
Civil Lawsuits
Someone whose conversation was illegally recorded can sue under MCL 750.539h. The statute allows an injunction to stop ongoing surveillance, actual damages for real harm, and punitive damages with no statutory cap.6Michigan Legislature. MCL Section 750.539h Michigan’s civil remedy statute does not mention attorney fees or minimum statutory damages, so juries and judges have wide discretion.
Federal law adds another layer. Victims of wiretapping violations can sue under 18 U.S.C. § 2520, which provides statutory damages of at least $10,000 per violation (or $100 per day, whichever is greater), plus attorney fees.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 2520 – Recovery of Civil Damages Authorized A single illegal recording can produce liability under both.
Exceptions
MCL 750.539g pulls a handful of activities out of the eavesdropping prohibition:
- A peace officer, state or federal, or the officer’s agent may eavesdrop or conduct surveillance while performing official duties, so long as the activity isn’t otherwise prohibited by law. The statute does not require a court order for this exception to apply.8Michigan Legislature. MCL Section 750.539g
- Communications company employees may hear transmitted communications in the ordinary course of their work.
- Public utilities may record customer calls requesting service or registering complaints if the recording serves a legitimate business purpose and employees know about it.
- Department of Corrections employees may routinely monitor and record prisoner phone calls made on facility phones.8Michigan Legislature. MCL Section 750.539g
The exceptions are narrower than they may look. A private employer doesn’t get a blanket pass to record employee conversations because it owns the building. An off-duty officer recording a personal dispute isn’t acting in official duty.
Whether Recordings Can Be Used in Court
A recording you made as a participant is admissible. Sullivan v. Gray placed participant recording outside the eavesdropping statute entirely, so there’s no statutory barrier to bringing it in.2Justia Law. Sullivan v Gray, 1982, Michigan Court of Appeals
What happens to an illegally made recording is more surprising. Michigan’s eavesdropping statute contains no exclusionary rule. Michigan courts have historically held that evidence unlawfully obtained by a private party, as opposed to police, may still be admissible, even though the recorder committed a felony in making it. Federal law is stricter: a recording that violates the federal Wiretap Act is inadmissible in any court proceeding. The same recording might be excluded under federal law but allowed under Michigan law depending on which statute was broken.
Interstate Phone Calls
Michigan’s one-party consent framework only governs what happens inside the state. Cross a state line by phone and a second set of rules can apply.
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) sets the national baseline. Recording a phone call is legal under federal law if you’re a party to the conversation or one party has consented, unless the recording is made to further a crime or tort. Federal violations carry up to five years in prison.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 2511 – Interception and Disclosure of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications Prohibited
About a dozen states require everyone on the call to consent. Courts have split on which state’s law governs an interstate call. The California Supreme Court held in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney that California’s all-party consent rule applied to a call between someone in California and someone in a one-party state. The safest approach is to follow whichever state’s law is more restrictive, which in practice means getting everyone’s consent when you don’t know where the other party is sitting.
The FCC itself has no rules governing the recording of telephone conversations by individuals.10Federal Communications Commission. Recording Telephone Conversations The regulation is all in federal criminal law and the relevant state statutes.
Recording Police
Recording police officers performing their duties in public is protected under the First Amendment. Multiple federal appellate courts have recognized this right, and Michigan’s eavesdropping statute doesn’t change the analysis, because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public encounter with an officer.
The right has practical limits. You cannot physically interfere with an officer’s work. You can’t enter restricted areas to get a better angle. An officer who believes you are obstructing may arrest you, and courts sort out afterward whether the arrest was legitimate. Recording calmly from a reasonable distance is the way to protect both the footage and yourself.
Recording in the Workplace
Eavesdropping laws apply at work the same way they do everywhere else. An employee who is part of a workplace conversation can record it. Installing a hidden device to capture conversations you’re not part of, like bugging a conference room, is a felony under MCL 750.539d.4Michigan Legislature. MCL Section 750.539d
Employers have more latitude with visible monitoring. Security cameras in lobbies and warehouses are generally permissible. Cameras in break rooms, restrooms, or changing areas violate MCL 750.539d because employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those spaces. The residential security carve-out does not extend to commercial workplaces.
Blanket employer policies that prohibit all employee recording sit in a gray area. Federal labor law protects concerted activity, which can include documenting workplace conditions. A January 2026 NLRB decision upheld a UPS policy limiting recording devices, with the judge noting that the policy was not “so broad as to chill workers’ labor law rights.” Overly aggressive no-recording policies invite NLRB challenges; employees who record others’ private conversations invite felony charges.
Businesses that record customer calls should announce the recording at the start, even though Michigan law doesn’t require it for a participant. The company is a party to the call, so state law is satisfied. But the customer may be in an all-party consent state, and a simple “this call may be recorded” notice eliminates that risk. Staying on the line after the announcement is treated as implied consent nearly everywhere.