Privacy · Recording Consent
Is It Legal to Record a Call in Alaska?
Whether you can record a conversation in Alaska, whether everyone must consent, the exceptions, the criminal penalty, and the trap that catches interstate calls. Cited to the statute.
The rules and exceptions in Alaska
Whose consent you need, when the rule does not apply, and the penalty for getting it wrong.
| The rule in this state | What it means |
|---|---|
| One party may consent | AS 42.20.310(a)(1) makes it unlawful to use an eavesdropping device to hear or record an oral conversation "without the consent of a party to the conversation." A participant is a party, so recording your own conversation is outside the statute. |
| Phone and in-person both covered | The definition of "eavesdropping device" reaches conversation "conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means," so both telephone and face-to-face conversations are covered. |
| Aimed at third-party interception | The Alaska Supreme Court has read the statute to target third-party interception, not a participant. Planting a device to capture a conversation you are not part of is what the law prohibits. |
| Police need a warrant | Under State v. Glass, 583 P.2d 872 (Alaska 1978), the Alaska Constitution requires the police to obtain a warrant before recording a conversation through a wired informant, even though the informant consents. |
| When it is different | What it means |
|---|---|
| A party consents | Consent of any party to the conversation takes the recording outside the offense. That is the operative one-party rule. |
| Hearing aids | The definition of "eavesdropping device" expressly excludes devices used to restore the deaf or hard-of-hearing to normal or partial hearing. |
| Silent video | Section 42.20.310 is audio only, reaching the effort to "hear or record all or any part of an oral conversation." Silent video is not covered by this section. |
What you can do right now
Concrete, neutral steps before you record a conversation in Alaska. This is legal information, not legal advice.
- Confirm you are a party
If you take part in the Alaska conversation you are a party, and your consent is enough. You do not have to tell the others you are recording.
- Do not record conversations you are not in
Using a device to capture a conversation you are not part of is the classic eavesdropping offense. The one-party rule protects participants, not eavesdroppers.
- Remember the police warrant rule
If you are working with law enforcement, State v. Glass requires a warrant before recording someone through a wired informant. A consenting informant is not enough under the Alaska Constitution.
- Talk to an Alaska attorney if you are accused
Illegal eavesdropping is a class A misdemeanor. A licensed Alaska attorney or the Alaska Department of Law can help you understand your situation.
Illegal recording can be a felony. If you have been recorded without consent, or are accused of it, this resource can connect you with a licensed attorney.
→ Alaska Department of LawThis is general legal information, not legal advice. The expectation of privacy, the purpose of a recording, and interstate calls can change the answer, so confirm your situation with a licensed attorney.
What people get wrong about recording in Alaska
Alaska's eavesdropping law lives in Title 42, Public Utilities and Carriers, not the criminal code, a relic of its origin as a telegraph-and-telephone statute. On its face it is a clean one-party rule: AS 42.20.310(a)(1) bans recording an oral conversation only "without the consent of a party to the conversation," so a participant may record without telling anyone. What makes Alaska unusual is that its constitution is stricter than its statute. In State v. Glass, the police wired an informant and recorded a drug sale inside a home without a warrant, and the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed suppression, holding that the state constitution protects people from surreptitious monitoring of their conversations by the government. So a private citizen may record their own call, but a police informant doing exactly the same thing needs a warrant first, and Alaska rejects the more permissive federal rule from United States v. White. The statute itself is audio only and does not reach silent video, and it carries no civil damages provision, unlike the wiretap acts in Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, and Hawaii. A person recorded illegally in Alaska would rely on the state's strong constitutional and common-law privacy protections instead.
Common questions
Can I record my own phone call in Alaska without telling anyone?
Yes. Alaska is a one-party consent state, and AS 42.20.310 bans recording only without the consent of a party. As a participant you are a party, so your own consent is enough and you do not have to notify the others.
Can the police record me through a wired informant without a warrant in Alaska?
No. Under State v. Glass the Alaska Constitution requires a warrant before the police may record a conversation through a wired informant, even though the informant consents. This is stricter than the federal rule.
Can I sue someone in Alaska for illegally recording me?
The statute is criminal and names no private right of action or damages formula. A civil claim would rest on Alaska's constitutional and common-law privacy protections rather than the eavesdropping statute.
Does Alaska's law cover a camera that records video but no sound?
Section 42.20.310 is audio only, reaching the effort to hear or record an oral conversation. Silent video is not covered by this section, though other privacy rules may apply.
Not legal advicePlainStatute provides plain-language summaries of public law for general information only. This is not legal advice. Statutes change; always confirm current requirements with the official source linked above before acting.