Alaska

One-party consent

Alaska is a one-party consent jurisdiction: a participant in the conversation may record it without telling the others.

The part that catches people out

Our reading, not verified text. Everything in this section is editorial judgment about how the statute works. Unlike the statute above, the reading itself has not been checked against a source. The decision named below has been checked against a court record and exists as cited — but what we say it holds is still our reading, not the court's words.

The statute is oddly narrow: AS 42.20.310 bans using an eavesdropping device to hear or record an ORAL conversation, and a participant is not eavesdropping. Separately, Alaska's constitution has been read (State v. Glass) to require a warrant before law enforcement records a conversation with a participant's consent — a limit on the state, not on a private investigator.

Where this comes from

Federal floor

Federal law permits recording with one party's consent unless the recording is made to commit a crime or tort. Federal law is the FLOOR; a state may and many do require more. Where an interstate call touches two states with different rules, the safe assumption is the stricter one. See 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d).

Reference information, not legal advice. Statutes change and courts read them differently; confirm the current text with the linked primary source and counsel licensed in the jurisdiction before relying on it.

All jurisdictions · This page as JSON · How this is verified · Terms of reuse

Found an error, or a statute that has moved? Tell us — a citation with the correction gets it into the next revision.