For the best spy gear and more, visit our online shop.

Can Parents Legally Record Social Workers or Law Enforcement?

Can Parents Legally Record Social Workers or Law Enforcement?

Can parents legally record interactions with government social workers, law enforcement, or others? Must they provide notice that the conversation is being recorded or otherwise get consent?

Not surprisingly, the answers to these questions differ by state. Unfortunately, most states do not have a specific law governing whether a citizen may record a law enforcement officer, and no state has a specific statute regarding recording of government social workers.

If you’re looking to record an official interaction, shop audio recording devices today.

The laws that govern are typically referred to as wiretapping and eavesdropping statutes. While wiretapping brings to mind using a device to tap a physical phone line for the purpose of eavesdropping on a conversation–a circumstance very different from filming a social worker or officer on the porch –the definitions found within the statutes indicate that wiretapping laws are generally applicable to both contexts.

State wiretapping laws generally fall into two categories:

In one-party consent states, being a party to a conversation generally makes it legal to record it even if with a law enforcement officer or social worker. In all-party consent states, notifying the officer or social worker that one is recording should be sufficient to constitute consent.

In several states, some of these all-party consent statutes have been overridden by caselaw establishing a right to record law enforcement even without their consent. Caselaw has generally applied a constitutional right to record under the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Freedom of the Press clauses.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet addressed this issue, several of the federal circuit courts have ruled that the right to record exists, thereby permitting it within the states in those circuits.¹ As a result, about half of the states in the U.S. have a “right to record” under federal appellate caselaw. It’s important to note that this right has been interpreted to include several limitations, including that:

A few states (Maryland and Michigan) are all-party consent states in federal circuits which have not yet ruled on the issue, but there are federal district courts within those states that have found a constitutional right to record law enforcement.2

Other related laws deal specifically with video surveillance in the context of a criminal violation of privacy. These laws usually only apply if the person being videoed has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” If this is the case, the person videoing must obtain consent.

When it comes to social workers, neither statutes nor caselaw have addressed whether they are included in the right to record. While social workers are analogous to law enforcement in Fourth Amendment issues, this has not yet been interpreted one way or the other regarding First Amendment issues.

Overall, it is generally legal to record law enforcement officers and social workers during a home visit or investigation. The legality of recording a phone conversation without their consent will entirely depend on the laws that apply to that state. States courts vary and can even be inconsistent when applying the law to recorded phone calls which occur in both one-party and all-party consent states.

If a social worker comes to your door, before thinking about recording or doing anything else, just say, “Excuse me one moment while I get my attorney on the phone.” Then call Heritage Defense. Learn more about joining today!

1These Circuits are the First Circuit: Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011); the Third Circuit: Fields v. City of Phila., 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017); the Fifth Circuit: Turner v. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017); the Seventh Circuit: ACLU v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012) (specific to audio recording); the Ninth Circuit: Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995); Askins v. United States Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018); the Tenth Circuit: Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022); and the Eleventh Circuit: Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000).

2Hulbert v. Pope, 535 F. Supp. 3d 431 (D. Md. 2021); Craft v. Billingslea, 459 F. Supp. 3d 890 (E.D. Mich. 2020)

This content was originally published here.

Check out our top picks for handheld voice recorders here.

Purchased an EyeSpySupply product and need help with setup? Check out our tutorials and tips here.


EYESPYSUPPLY offers only the highest quality real spy equipment, spy gear and surveillance equipment to help you monitor any situation.