Earkeep
Is Missouri a one-party consent state?
Last updated: · Reviewed quarterly
For telephone and other wire communications, clearly yes. For conversation in a room the answer is contested, and we are not going to pretend otherwise: the statute's oral-communication clause appears not to reach an ordinary recorder at all, while RCFP states that all-party consent is required. No Missouri case resolving it was found.
The short answer
On a call, record freely. In a room, announce it, because the honest answer is that nobody knows and the offence is a felony.
The statute
Phone. § 542.402.2(3) exempts "a person not acting under law to intercept a wire communication where such person is a party … or where one of the parties … has given prior consent", unless intercepted to commit a criminal or tortious act. It is written for wire communications only, and it is plainly one-party.
In person, and this is the disagreement. § 542.402.1(2) reaches the use of a device to intercept an oral communication only "when such device transmits communications by radio or interferes with the transmission of such communication". An ordinary recorder does neither, so on the text it appears to fall outside the prohibition entirely. And no party-consent exception for oral communications is available to a private person, because § 542.402.2(2) covers only persons acting under law.
RCFP says something different, stating that all-party consent is required for private in-person conversations, with recordings in public settings lacking a privacy expectation permitted. The two readings do not agree: the statutory text suggests the conduct is uncovered rather than that it requires everyone's consent. No Missouri case resolving it was located, so we report both and would not publish a clean all-party claim for Missouri.
The statute uses "a justified expectation that the communication is not being recorded" as the qualifying condition for oral communications, so an expectation element is present on the in-person side either way.
What happens if you get it wrong
A Class E felony for violating § 542.402.1. RCFP puts the maximum at four years and $10,000 by reference to §§ 558.002 and 558.011. Hidden-camera violations are misdemeanors at up to a year and $2,000, rising to a felony where multiple persons are recorded or images disclosed.
Private right of action under § 542.418: the greater of actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation, or $10,000, plus punitive damages, fees and court costs. Amounts per RCFP.
If the other person is in another state
Being one of the people in the conversation answers the question for Missouri. It does not answer it for whoever is on the other end. No rule settles which state's law applies when the participants are in different places, more than one may apply at once, and courts have reached opposite results on comparable facts. If anyone on the call might be in an all-party state, the safe posture is theirs rather than yours. The general problem is on the US overview.
What to say
On a call, nothing is required. In a room, announce it, because the in-person position is genuinely unresolved and announcing costs a sentence.
Before we start: I'm recording and transcribing this meeting so I have accurate notes. It runs on my own laptop and nothing is uploaded. Any objection?
Longer versions, and what to do when someone says no, are on telling people you're recording.
Where Earkeep sits in this
Earkeep records continuously and announces itself to nobody: no bot in the participant list, no banner on anyone else's screen. In a one-party state that is legally unremarkable, and it is still the reason nobody in the room knows unless you say so.
The controls exist for when somebody would rather you didn't. A pause from the live edge releases the microphone and the system audio stream, so your operating system's own recording indicator goes dark and the person who asked can watch it happen rather than take your word for it. A meeting on a connected calendar can be marked never-record. And a stretch of the day, or a saved meeting with its transcript, can be purged: the lines come out of the file on your own disk and nothing is written in their place, with no server copy to reconcile against because there is no server.
None of that makes a recording lawful anywhere, and the audio never leaving your device is not an answer to a consent statute. It is a good answer to "where does this go", which is usually the question the room actually has.
Sources
Frequently asked questions
Is Missouri a one-party consent state?
For telephone and other wire communications, yes: § 542.402.2(3) exempts a party to the communication. For in-person conversation the position is contested and no case resolves it.
Can I record an in-person meeting in Missouri?
Probably, but the reasoning matters. The statute's oral-communication clause reaches only a device that transmits by radio or interferes with transmission, which an ordinary recorder does not, so the conduct appears uncovered. RCFP says all-party consent is required instead. Announce it and the disagreement stops mattering.
Why do sources disagree about Missouri?
Because the statute is drafted narrowly for oral communications and RCFP characterises the gap as an all-party requirement rather than as an absence of coverage. Those are different legal conclusions with the same practical advice, and no Missouri decision has chosen between them.
Related
- US recording laws, state by state: the federal baseline, the cross-border problem, and all 51 jurisdictions.
- Telling people you're recording: the scripts, and the three ways to stop.
- Private by design: why the audio never leaves your computer.
This page is legal information, not legal advice. It summarises statutes and cases rather than replacing them, and we are not lawyers. If the answer matters, ask someone who can be held to their answer.
Ask the room, then keep the answer
14-day full trial, no account required.