I know of only two states that have "2 party consent" laws -- Massachusetts and Illinois. In Massachussets and the rest of the 1st Circuit, I believe,
Glick established that these consent laws could not be used to prevent the public from recording law enforcement performing their duties.
Originally Posted by
TWA884
To the best of my knowledge, no jurisdiction in the US prohibits recordings of conversations unless those take place in areas or situations where at least one of the persons participating has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Please feel free to provide citations to the relevant jurisdictions and statutes if I'm wrong.
As per my previous post, both the MA and IL statutes do in fact prohibit recording anywhere. I mistakenly referred to it in that post as "two party consent" -- I believe it actually not "consent" that is required, but notification. In other words, you don't need the other party's permission, you just need to inform them. At your home, a posted notice stating "these premises under video and audio surveillance" suffices. And again, the notification requirement has been explicitly -- at least in the First Circuit -- found to be unconstitutional when applied to situations of citizens video/audiotaping law enforcement performing their duties -- the case is
Glik. Glik was charged with violating the MA statute when he filmed police doing what police do a homeless person in Boston Common so he sued and prevailed,.
All above info is based on top of my head recollection, a dodgy source at best, so don't @ me, bro