Montana

Notice, not consent

Montana turns on whether the recording was secret, not on whether the other side agreed: tell the participants and you may record.

Montana is commonly listed as all-party (two-party) consent. That is the label you will find on most reference lists, and it is close enough to be useful and wrong enough to matter. What the statute actually does is above.

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.

Montana is a NOTICE state, not a consent state. § 45-8-213(1)(c) reaches recording by a HIDDEN device without the knowledge of all parties, and the exception at (2)(a)(iii) covers 'persons given warning of the transcription or recording' — adding that if one person gives the warning, either party may record. An investigator who announces that the call is being recorded may record it whether or not the claimant agrees. A concealed recorder is the exposure.

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.