Is it legal to record phone calls in Montana?
Only with everyone’s consent. Montana is an all-party consent state: every participant in a phone call must consent to being recorded. The standard mechanism is a clear announcement — a party who stays on the line after hearing “this call may be recorded” is generally treated as having consented.
What Montana law says
Montana is one of roughly a dozen US states that require all parties’ consent to record a phone call. Recording without consent can carry criminal penalties and civil liability, so the practice to adopt is simple: announce the recording at the start of every call, or use a tool that announces it for you. Montana technically requires notification rather than consent — a clear announcement satisfies it.
Montana is an all-party notice state for phone calls and conversations: recording with a hidden device is illegal without the knowledge of all parties, but a clear warning makes the recording lawful.
"A person commits the offense of privacy in communications if the person knowingly or purposely uses any electronic or mechanical device to record all or part of any conversation without the knowledge of all parties to the conversation." — Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213(1)(c)
Federal one-party consent under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) does not preempt Montana's stricter knowledge requirement. A recording lawful under federal law can still violate Montana law if made with a hidden device without all parties' knowledge — though a clear recording warning satisfies the statute.
Montana's statute technically turns on knowledge, not consent: recording is illegal only when done with a hidden device without the knowledge of all parties. That means you do not need anyone's permission to record a call in Montana - you need to make sure everyone knows. A clear warning at the start of the call ("this call is being recorded") satisfies the statute, and the exceptions in subsection (2) say expressly that once one party provides a warning, either party may record. Staying on the line after the warning is treated as sufficient; no verbal agreement is required. Separately, the Montana Constitution's explicit right of privacy (Article II, Section 10) adds a layer beyond the statute for government actors: the Montana Supreme Court requires police to get a warrant before secretly recording conversations even when their informant consents.
| Consent rule for phone calls | All-party consent |
| Recording calls you're part of | Only with every participant’s consent — announce the recording. |
| Calls with people in other states | The stricter state's rule may apply — when in doubt, disclose. |
What breaking the law costs in Montana
A first conviction is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500, up to 6 months in county jail, or both. A second conviction rises to up to $1,000 and/or up to 1 year in county jail, and a third or subsequent conviction carries up to $10,000 and/or up to 5 years in state prison.
The statute itself does not create a private right of action, so there are no statutory damages for illegal recording in Montana - enforcement is criminal. A person recorded in violation of the law would have to rely on general privacy tort theories, and for government recordings, illegally obtained recordings can be suppressed as evidence under the Montana Constitution.
Exceptions worth knowing
- Recordings where any party has been given a warning that the conversation is being recorded - after one party warns, either party may lawfully record.
- Elected or appointed public officials and public employees speaking in the performance of official duties.
- Persons speaking at public meetings.
- Health care facilities and government health agencies recording health care emergency telephone communications (for example, emergency lines).
How Montana courts have ruled
Statutes set the rule; cases show how it plays out when a recording ends up in front of a judge. These are real, decided cases under Montana law.
What happened: A homicide defendant's telephone calls from jail were recorded by the facility and used against him, and he argued the recordings violated Montana's privacy-in-communications statute.
The ruling: The Montana Supreme Court held that the jail's notification to inmates that phone calls would be recorded satisfied the statute's warning exception, so the recordings were lawful and admissible.
What happened: Detectives outfitted a confidential informant with a hidden body wire and recorded her drug purchases from Goetz in his home without a warrant; Goetz never knew about or consented to the recording.
The ruling: The court held that warrantless electronic monitoring and recording of the conversations violated the Montana Constitution's privacy and search-and-seizure provisions (Article II, Sections 10 and 11), even though the informant consented, and the recordings were suppressed.
What happened: A confidential informant secretly recorded cell-phone conversations with the defendant without a warrant; the defendant moved to suppress under the Montana Constitution following State v. Goetz.
The ruling: The Supreme Court held warrantless, surreptitious police recording of telephone conversations violates Montana's constitutional privacy protections even when the informant consents — extending Goetz to phone calls.
Personal calls vs. business calls in Montana
Recording personal calls
If you want to record a call with an ex, a landlord, or anyone else in Montana, the safe path is simple: say you are recording at the start of the call. Once you give that warning, the recording is legal whether or not the other person likes it, and it can document harassment, broken promises, or agreements. Secretly recording with a hidden app or device, by contrast, is exactly what § 45-8-213(1)(c) criminalizes, and repeat violations escalate quickly to felony-level exposure. In custody and divorce disputes, a secretly made recording risks a criminal referral and gives the other side an easy way to attack you in court, while an announced recording carries none of that baggage.
Recording business calls
Montana businesses can record sales and support calls by playing the familiar announcement - "this call may be recorded" - because a warned conversation is expressly exempt. The warning must actually reach the parties on the call; burying notice in a document the caller never hears does not fit the exception, which turns on knowledge of the people in the conversation. Employee monitoring works the same way: tell employees and customers that calls are recorded and the statute is satisfied. Companies calling out of Montana should remember that the warning exception is a Montana rule; a call into another all-party state still needs to satisfy that state's law too.
Calls that cross state lines
Montana courts have not produced a leading choice-of-law decision on cross-border call recording, so there is no Montana equivalent of California's Kearney rule. The practical approach is to follow the strictest law on the line: a Montanan recording a call with someone in another state should give the recording warning anyway, since it satisfies Montana and nearly every other state's consent rule at once. Federal law (one-party consent) does not shield you from Montana's stricter knowledge requirement.
The safe way to record in Montana
Whatever the local rule, one habit covers every situation: say the call is being recorded at the start. Consent is then on the recording itself, and cross-border calls stop being a legal puzzle. Callmark can play "This call may be recorded" automatically on your calls, so the disclosure never depends on your memory.
For the full national picture — every all-party state, cross-border rules, and consent mechanics — see our state-by-state consent guide.
Sources and further reading
Statutes, court opinions, and reference guides cited on this page. Laws change — verify current text before relying on it for anything consequential.
- Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213 (official text, Montana Legislature)
- Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213 (FindLaw annotated text)
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - Montana recording guide (incl. State v. DuBray)
- State v. Goetz, 2008 MT 296, 191 P.3d 489 (FindLaw opinion)
- State v. Goetz case brief (Quimbee)
Common questions
Only if everyone on the call consents. An announcement at the start of the call, followed by the other party staying on the line, is the standard way consent is established in Montana.
Courts have applied different states' laws to interstate calls, and you often can't verify where a mobile number is. The practical rule: assume the strictest state applies and disclose the recording.
In most states, continuing a call after a clear "this call may be recorded" announcement is treated as implied consent — the same mechanism customer-service lines rely on.
Not exactly - you need their knowledge, not their permission. Montana bans recording with a hidden device without the knowledge of all parties, but the statute's exceptions say that once one party gives a warning that the call is being recorded, either party may record. If you announce the recording and the other person keeps talking, the recording is legal even if they object.
Secretly recording a conversation you are part of, without warning the other party, violates § 45-8-213 and is a misdemeanor (escalating with repeat convictions). Recording calls you are not a party to - like tapping your spouse's line - is riskier still and can also violate the federal Wiretap Act. Courts in family disputes tend to react badly to covert recordings; an announced recording is the defensible route.
Yes. In State v. DuBray, the Montana Supreme Court held that notifying inmates that their calls are recorded satisfies the statute's warning exception, so those recordings are lawful and routinely used as evidence.
Montana is usually listed as an all-party state, but the label is imprecise. The statute requires all parties to know about the recording, and a warning by any one party makes the recording legal. So it functions as an all-party-notice state rather than an all-party-consent state - announce the recording and you are compliant.
Not without a warrant. In State v. Goetz (2008), the Montana Supreme Court held that the state constitution's privacy right requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant before electronically monitoring or recording a private conversation, even when one participant (the informant) consents. Recordings made without one are suppressed.
Record responsibly in Montana, automatically.
Built-in disclosure · automatic transcripts and summaries · 200 minutes included
Get Callmark