A Practical Guide to Taping Phone Calls and In-Person Conversations in the 50 States and D.C.

• Introduction

• State-by-state guide

• Tape-recording laws
  at a glance

• Consent and its limits

• Interstate phone calls

• Possession and
  publication

• The FCC’s role

• Cellular & cordless calls

• Citations to cases

Texas

So long as a wire, oral, or electronic communication—including the radio portion of any cordless telephone call—is not recorded for a criminal or tortious purpose, anyone who is a party to the communication, or who has the consent of a party, can lawfully record the communication and disclose its contents. Texas Penal Code § 16.02.

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of “oral communication,” Texas Code Crim. Pro. Art. 18.20.

A person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted or disclosed has a civil cause of action against the interceptor or discloser. Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.002. Such a person is entitled to recover $10,000 for each occurrence, actual damages in excess of $10,000, as well as punitive damages and attorney fees and costs. Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.004.

In addition, unlawful recording of a conversation or disclosure of its contents with reason to know of the illegal interception is a felony punishable by two to 20 years in prison and a fine not to exceed $10,000. Texas Penal Code § 12.33.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans (5th Cir.) held in 2000 that a television station and reporter who obtained illegally recorded tapes of telephone conversations, but who had not participated in the illegal recording, could nonetheless be held civilly liable under the federal and Texas wiretapping statutes. Peavy v. WFAA-TV, Inc., 221 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2000). The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, along with two other cases raising similar issues. The Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas case but decided in one of the other cases, Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), that media defendants could not be held liable for publishing information of public concern that was obtained unlawfully by a source where the media were blameless in the illegal interception. Following the Bartnicki decision, the parties in the Peavy case settled out of court.