Last updated: September 3, 2026
Illinois is an all-party consent state. Recording a private conversation without the consent of every participant is a felony under 720 ILCS 5/14-2 — not a civil violation, not a fine, a felony. Illinois has one of the strictest recording laws in the country, and the rules catch far more people than they should: employees documenting a hostile boss, spouses gathering evidence, sales teams running call-recording software, companies deploying AI notetakers.
This page explains what the statute actually prohibits, what it does not, and where the exceptions lie.
The short version
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Consent standard | All parties |
| Statute | 720 ILCS 5/14-1 through 5/14-9 |
| What is protected | Private conversations and private electronic communications |
| First offense | Class 4 felony (1–3 years) |
| Subsequent offense | Class 3 felony (2–5 years) |
| Victim is police, prosecutor, AG, or judge on duty | Class 3 felony |
| Civil liability | Yes — 720 ILCS 5/14-6 |
| Recording police in public | Expressly permitted |
For what those felony classes mean in practice, see our Illinois sentencing ranges chart.
What makes a conversation "private"
This is the threshold question, and most people get it wrong in both directions.
Under 720 ILCS 5/14-1(d), a conversation is private when at least one participant intended it to be private, and the circumstances reasonably justified that expectation. Both halves matter. Subjective intent alone is not enough; the expectation has to be objectively reasonable.
That two-part test exists because of how the statute was rewritten. The prior version criminalized recording any conversation regardless of privacy interest, and the Illinois Supreme Court struck it down as overbroad in People v. Clark and People v. Melongo (2014). The General Assembly replaced it months later with Public Act 98-1142, effective December 30, 2014. The replacement kept all-party consent but narrowed coverage to private communications.
Practical consequence: a loud argument in a crowded restaurant is likely not a private conversation. A closed-door meeting in an HR office almost certainly is. Between those poles sit most real disputes, and the analysis is fact-specific.
The statute also reaches private electronic communications — emails, texts, chat messages, and direct messages carrying a reasonable expectation of privacy. That extension is what pulls modern software into the statute’s orbit.
Penalties
Eavesdropping under 720 ILCS 5/14-4 is a Class 4 felony for a first offense, carrying one to three years in the Illinois Department of Corrections. A second or subsequent offense is a Class 3 felony, two to five years.
Recording a law enforcement officer, State’s Attorney, Attorney General, or judge in the performance of official duties is a Class 3 felony. Under the pre-2014 statute this was a Class 1 felony — the same class as some violent offenses — which was among the provisions that drew constitutional scrutiny.
A Class 4 felony is probationable, and court supervision, probation, and conditional discharge are meaningfully different outcomes with different consequences for your record.
Separately, 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(5) makes it an offense to use or disclose information you know or should know was obtained through unlawful eavesdropping. You can be charged for passing along a recording someone else made illegally.
Civil exposure
Criminal charges are not the only risk. Under 720 ILCS 5/14-6, any party to an unlawfully recorded conversation may sue for injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees.
The provision reaches beyond the person who pressed record. Landlords, building operators, and common carriers who knowingly aid, abet, or permit eavesdropping face liability for actual and punitive damages. Criminal prosecution and a civil suit can proceed in parallel over the same recording.
Exceptions worth knowing
Section 14-3 contains a long list of exemptions. The ones that come up most often:
Recording police in public. Illinois protects this two ways. Statutorily, 720 ILCS 5/14-2(e) — added by Public Act 99-352, effective January 1, 2016 — provides that a person who is not a law enforcement officer may record an officer performing official duties in a public place or in circumstances carrying no reasonable expectation of privacy. Constitutionally, the Seventh Circuit held in ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012), that the First Amendment protects openly recording police performing their duties in public. Illinois sits in the Seventh Circuit, so Alvarez is controlling.
Two limits. The recording must be open, not surreptitious. And the exception covers officers in public, not law enforcement radio traffic or secured communications.
Fear of a crime. Under 720 ILCS 5/14-3(i), a party to a conversation may record it without other-party consent when there is reasonable suspicion that another party is committing, is about to commit, or has committed a criminal offense against that person or a family member. This provision is narrower than people assume and gets litigated hard — reasonable suspicion is a real standard, not a hunch you form afterward.
Open Meetings Act proceedings. Meetings required to be open to the public are exempt.
Law enforcement recording. Officers acting within their duties, and court-authorized interceptions under Articles 108A and 108B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are exempt.
What this means for businesses
If you record calls, host meetings, or run software that transcribes conversations, and any participant is in Illinois, the statute applies.
Call recording. All-party consent means the disclosure has to come before recording starts and every participant has to have a genuine opportunity to consent. A notice buried in terms of service is not consent from the person on the other end of the line.
AI notetakers and transcription. The statute covers transcription of private electronic communications, not just audio capture. Treat an AI meeting assistant the same as a tape recorder — announce it, get agreement, and do not rely on the vendor’s default settings.
Live chat and chatbots. Because private electronic communications are covered, session recording and chat transcription on a website with Illinois visitors sits within the statute’s scope.
Employee recording. The all-party rule cuts both ways. An employee who covertly records a supervisor commits a felony. So does an employer who covertly records employees. Businesses weighing employee-conduct issues should also understand Illinois theft of labor or services under 720 ILCS 5/16-3, which governs the related question of time theft.
If you have been charged
Eavesdropping prosecutions in Cook County frequently turn on the threshold question rather than the recording itself: was the conversation actually private? If the circumstances did not reasonably justify an expectation of privacy, the statute was never triggered. Charges also fail where the recording was not surreptitious, where an exemption applies, or where the State cannot establish the required mental state.
This is a felony charge with a real prison range and lasting collateral consequences. It should not be handled without counsel. Learn more about our Cook County criminal defense practice, or read what to look for when choosing a criminal defense attorney.
This page explains Illinois law in general terms and is not legal advice. The statute has been amended repeatedly since 2014, and how it applies depends entirely on the facts of your situation. If you are facing an eavesdropping charge or need advice on a recording policy, consult a licensed Illinois attorney.
Law Offices of Mitch Furman, P.C.
77 West Wacker Drive, 45th Floor, Chicago, IL 60601
312-236-7078
Sources
- 720 ILCS 5/14-1 through 5/14-9, Illinois General Assembly
- Public Act 98-1142 (eff. Dec. 30, 2014)
- Public Act 99-352 (eff. Jan. 1, 2016)
- People v. Clark, 2014 IL 115776
- People v. Melongo, 2014 IL 114852
- ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012)
