{ "batch": "628-maryland-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "articles": [ { "id": "learn_r628_maryland_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_maryland_statutes_anchor", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Maryland General Assembly Statutes Index: statutory compilation source", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Maryland's official statutory index is published by the Maryland General Assembly at its state website.", "body": "Maryland's official statutory index is published by the Maryland General Assembly at its state website.\n\nWhat Maryland General Assembly actually says:\n\n“Statutes”\n\nNote: Official anchor record for Maryland statutory compilation.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/Statutes", "last_verified": "2026-10-14", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Maryland General Assembly", "evidence_quote": "Statutes", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "628-maryland-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "Maryland General Assembly Statutes Index", "topic": "statutory compilation source", "applies_to_country": "US", "tags": { "lane": "any", "stage": "setting_up", "region": [ "us-md" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "failed", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "placeholder_quote_too_short", "strong_label_on_weak_content" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } }, { "id": "learn_r628_maryland_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_maryland_wiretap_consent_all_party", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Wiretapping and electronic surveillance consent", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Maryland law permits a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties have given prior consent, unless done for a criminal or tortious purpose.", "body": "Maryland law permits a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties have given prior consent, unless done for a criminal or tortious purpose.\n\nWhat Maryland General Assembly actually says:\n\n“It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of this State.”\n\nNote: Establishes the all-party consent requirement under Maryland wiretap law.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcj§ion=10-402", "last_verified": "2026-10-14", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Maryland General Assembly", "evidence_quote": "It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication and where all of the parties to the communication have given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of this State.", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "628-maryland-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 10-402", "topic": "wiretapping and electronic surveillance consent", "applies_to_country": "US", "tags": { "lane": "any", "stage": "setting_up", "region": [ "us-md" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "legal_fetch_over_cap" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } }, { "id": "learn_r628_maryland_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_maryland_wiretap_penalties", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 10-402: wiretapping unlawful interception penalties", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Any person who violates the wiretap interception prohibitions is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.", "body": "Any person who violates the wiretap interception prohibitions is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.\n\nWhat Maryland General Assembly actually says:\n\n“Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.”\n\nNote: Criminal penalty classification for unlawful interception.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcj§ion=10-402", "last_verified": "2026-10-14", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Maryland General Assembly", "evidence_quote": "Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a felony and is subject to imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "628-maryland-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 10-402", "topic": "wiretapping unlawful interception penalties", "applies_to_country": "US", "tags": { "lane": "any", "stage": "trouble", "region": [ "us-md" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "legal_fetch_over_cap" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } }, { "id": "learn_r628_maryland_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_maryland_wiretap_civil_remedies", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Wiretapping civil cause of action and damages", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] A person whose communication is unlawfully intercepted is entitled to recover actual damages (not less than liquidated damages of $100 per day or $1,000, whichever is higher), punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees.", "body": "A person whose communication is unlawfully intercepted is entitled to recover actual damages (not less than liquidated damages of $100 per day or $1,000, whichever is higher), punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees.\n\nWhat Maryland General Assembly actually says:\n\n“Any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this subtitle shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use the communications, and be entitled to recover from any person: (1) Actual damages but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher; (2) Punitive damages; and (3) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.”\n\nNote: Civil remedies for unlawful wiretap interception.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcj§ion=10-410", "last_verified": "2026-10-14", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Maryland General Assembly", "evidence_quote": "Any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this subtitle shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose, or use the communications, and be entitled to recover from any person: (1) Actual damages but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher; (2) Punitive damages; and (3) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "628-maryland-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 10-410", "topic": "wiretapping civil cause of action and damages", "applies_to_country": "US", "tags": { "lane": "any", "stage": "trouble", "region": [ "us-md" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "legal_fetch_over_cap" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } }, { "id": "learn_r628_maryland_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_maryland_wiretap_exception_traffic_stop", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 10-402: wiretapping law enforcement traffic stop exception", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Law enforcement officers may lawfully intercept oral communications during a lawfully detained vehicle stop if the officer is a party, identifies as an officer, informs all parties at the beginning of the communication, and records via videotape.", "body": "Law enforcement officers may lawfully intercept oral communications during a lawfully detained vehicle stop if the officer is a party, identifies as an officer, informs all parties at the beginning of the communication, and records via videotape.\n\nWhat Maryland General Assembly actually says:\n\n“It is lawful under this subtitle for a law enforcement officer in the course of the officer's regular duty to intercept an oral communication if: 1. The law enforcement officer initially lawfully detained a vehicle during a criminal investigation or for a traffic violation; 2. The law enforcement officer is a party to the oral communication; 3. The law enforcement officer has been identified as a law enforcement officer to the other parties to the oral communication prior to any interception; 4. The law enforcement officer informs all other parties to the communication of the interception at the beginning of the communication; and 5. The oral interception is being made as part of a video tape recording.”\n\nNote: Statutory exception for traffic stop video/audio recordings by law enforcement.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcj§ion=10-402", "last_verified": "2026-10-14", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Maryland General Assembly", "evidence_quote": "It is lawful under this subtitle for a law enforcement officer in the course of the officer's regular duty to intercept an oral communication if: 1. The law enforcement officer initially lawfully detained a vehicle during a criminal investigation or for a traffic violation; 2. The law enforcement officer is a party to the oral communication; 3. The law enforcement officer has been identified as a law enforcement officer to the other parties to the oral communication prior to any interception; 4. The law enforcement officer informs all other parties to the communication of the interception at the beginning of the communication; and 5. The oral interception is being made as part of a video tape recording.", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "628-maryland-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 10-402", "topic": "wiretapping law enforcement traffic stop exception", "applies_to_country": "US", "tags": { "lane": "any", "stage": "any", "region": [ "us-md" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "legal_fetch_over_cap" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } }, { "id": "learn_r628_maryland_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_maryland_wiretap_exception_body_worn", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 10-402: wiretapping body worn recording device exception", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Law enforcement or correctional officers in uniform or displaying a badge may intercept oral communications using body-worn digital recording devices while making reasonable efforts to notify individuals as soon as practicable.", "body": "Law enforcement or correctional officers in uniform or displaying a badge may intercept oral communications using body-worn digital recording devices while making reasonable efforts to notify individuals as soon as practicable.\n\nWhat Maryland General Assembly actually says:\n\n“It is lawful under this subtitle for a law enforcement officer or a correctional officer in the course of the officer's regular duty to intercept an oral communication with a body-worn digital recording device or an electronic control device capable of recording video and oral communications if: 1. The law enforcement officer or correctional officer is in uniform or prominently displaying the officer's badge or other insignia; 2. The law enforcement officer or correctional officer is making reasonable efforts to conform to standards in accordance with § 3-511 of the Public Safety Article or § 8-211 of the Correctional Services Article for the use of body-worn digital recording devices or electronic control devices capable of recording video and oral communications; 3. The law enforcement officer or correctional officer is a party to the oral communication; 4. Law enforcement or the correctional officer notifies, as soon as is practicable, the individual that the individual is being recorded, unless it is unsafe, impractical, or impossible to do so; and 5. The oral interception is being made as part of a videotape or digital recording.”\n\nNote: Statutory exception for body-worn cameras used by officers.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcj§ion=10-402", "last_verified": "2026-10-14", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Maryland General Assembly", "evidence_quote": "It is lawful under this subtitle for a law enforcement officer or a correctional officer in the course of the officer's regular duty to intercept an oral communication with a body-worn digital recording device or an electronic control device capable of recording video and oral communications if: 1. The law enforcement officer or correctional officer is in uniform or prominently displaying the officer's badge or other insignia; 2. The law enforcement officer or correctional officer is making reasonable efforts to conform to standards in accordance with § 3-511 of the Public Safety Article or § 8-211 of the Correctional Services Article for the use of body-worn digital recording devices or electronic control devices capable of recording video and oral communications; 3. The law enforcement officer or correctional officer is a party to the oral communication; 4. Law enforcement or the correctional officer notifies, as soon as is practicable, the individual that the individual is being recorded, unless it is unsafe, impractical, or impossible to do so; and 5. The oral interception is being made as part of a videotape or digital recording.", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "628-maryland-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 10-402", "topic": "wiretapping body worn recording device exception", "applies_to_country": "US", "tags": { "lane": "any", "stage": "any", "region": [ "us-md" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "legal_fetch_over_cap" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } }, { "id": "learn_r628_maryland_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_maryland_wiretap_exception_criminal_investigation", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 10-402: wiretapping criminal investigation exception", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Law enforcement officers or persons acting under their supervision may intercept communications in criminal investigations of specified offenses when an officer is a party or prior consent is given by one party.", "body": "Law enforcement officers or persons acting under their supervision may intercept communications in criminal investigations of specified offenses when an officer is a party or prior consent is given by one party.\n\nWhat Maryland General Assembly actually says:\n\n“It is lawful under this subtitle for an investigative or law enforcement officer acting in a criminal investigation or any other person acting at the prior direction and under the supervision of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication in order to provide evidence: 1. Of the commission of: A. Murder; B. Kidnapping; C. Rape; D. A sexual offense in the first or second degree;”\n\nNote: Statutory exception for law enforcement investigations of major crimes.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcj§ion=10-402", "last_verified": "2026-10-14", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Maryland General Assembly", "evidence_quote": "It is lawful under this subtitle for an investigative or law enforcement officer acting in a criminal investigation or any other person acting at the prior direction and under the supervision of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication in order to provide evidence: 1. Of the commission of: A. Murder; B. Kidnapping; C. Rape; D. A sexual offense in the first or second degree;", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "628-maryland-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 10-402", "topic": "wiretapping criminal investigation exception", "applies_to_country": "US", "tags": { "lane": "any", "stage": "any", "region": [ "us-md" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "legal_fetch_over_cap" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } }, { "id": "learn_r628_maryland_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_maryland_wiretap_definition_intercept", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 10-401: wiretapping definition of intercept", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Intercept is defined under Maryland law as the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.", "body": "Intercept is defined under Maryland law as the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.\n\nWhat Maryland General Assembly actually says:\n\n“\"Intercept\" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.”\n\nNote: Statutory definition of interception.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcj§ion=10-401", "last_verified": "2026-10-14", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Maryland General Assembly", "evidence_quote": "\"Intercept\" means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "628-maryland-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 10-401", "topic": "wiretapping definition of intercept", "applies_to_country": "US", "tags": { "lane": "any", "stage": "setting_up", "region": [ "us-md" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "thin_body", "source_unverifiable:fetch_failed:budget" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } }, { "id": "learn_r628_maryland_recording_consent_one_party_or_two_party_maryland_wiretap_definition_oral_communication", "category": "Safety", "title": "[Unverified - being checked] Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 10-401: wiretapping definition of oral communication", "summary": "[Unverified - being checked] Oral communication is defined under Maryland law as any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation, excluding electronic communications.", "body": "Oral communication is defined under Maryland law as any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation, excluding electronic communications.\n\nWhat Maryland General Assembly actually says:\n\n“(i) \"Oral communication\" means any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation. (ii) \"Oral communication\" does not include any electronic communication.”\n\nNote: Statutory definition of oral communication.", "source_type": "official", "source_link": "https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Laws/StatuteText?article=gcj§ion=10-401", "last_verified": "2026-10-14", "reliability": "STRONG PRACTICE", "source_tier": "A", "source_publisher": "Maryland General Assembly", "evidence_quote": "(i) \"Oral communication\" means any conversation or words spoken to or by any person in private conversation. (ii) \"Oral communication\" does not include any electronic communication.", "volatility": "low", "from_batch": "628-maryland-recording-consent-one-party-or-two-party", "subject": "Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article § 10-401", "topic": "wiretapping definition of oral communication", "applies_to_country": "US", "tags": { "lane": "any", "stage": "setting_up", "region": [ "us-md" ], "platform": "any", "topic": [ "safety.legal" ], "explicitness": "any" }, "verification": { "status": "unverified", "label": "Unverified - being checked", "reasons": [ "legal_fetch_over_cap" ], "checked_utc": "20261021-123916Z" } } ] }