Ark. Code Ann. » Title 5 Chapter 60
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-120 (2026)

Interception and recording

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. It is unlawful for a person to intercept a wire, landline, oral, telephonic communication, or wireless communication, and to record or possess a recording of the communication unless the person is a party to the communication or one (1) of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception and recording.
  2. Any violation of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
    1. It is not unlawful for the act to be committed by a person acting under the color of law.
    2. It is an exception to the application of subsection (a) of this section that an officer, employee, or agent of a public telephone utility or company that is licensed by a federal or state agency to provide wire or wireless telecommunication service to the public provides information, facilities, or technical assistance to a person acting under the color of law to intercept a wire, wireless, oral, or telephonic communication.
    3. It is not unlawful under this section for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of any public telephone utility or telecommunications provider whose facilities are used in the transmission of a wire communication to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his or her employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his or her service or to the protection of the rights or property of the telecommunications provider or public telephone utility of the communication.
  4. The provisions of this section do not apply to a:
    1. Telecommunication service offered by a telecommunications provider or public telephone utility; or
    2. Federal Communications Commission licensed amateur radio operator.
  5. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prohibit or restrict a Federal Communications Commission licensed amateur radio operator or anyone operating a police scanner from intercepting a communication for pleasure.
  6. Consistent with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 2703, as it existed on January 1, 2003, the issuance of a court order for disclosure of a customer communication or record to a governmental entity requiring the information as part of an ongoing criminal investigation is not prohibited by the laws of this state.
  7. Consistent with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3122 — 3127, as they existed on January 1, 2003, the issuance of a court order authorizing or approving the installation and use of a pen register or a trap-and-trace device as part of an ongoing criminal investigation is not prohibited by the laws of this state.

History. Acts 1993, No. 1006, §§ 1-5; 2001, No. 1190, § 1; 2001, No. 1773, § 1; 2001, No. 1823, § 1; 2003, No. 1087, § 7.

A.C.R.C. Notes. Pursuant to § 1-2-207, this section is set out as amended by Acts 2001, No. 1823, § 1. Subsection (a) of this section was also amended by Acts 2001, No. 1190, § 1, and Acts 2001, No. 1773, § 1. Acts 2001, No. 1190, § 1, amended subsection (a) to read as follows:

“(a) It shall be unlawful for a person to:

“(1) Intercept, unless the person is a party to the communication or one (1) of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception and recording:

“(A) A wire communication;

“(B) An oral communication; or

“(C) A telephonic communication, including a communication that utilizes the electromagnetic spectrum frequencies generally used by cordless telephone technology and generally used by cellular telephone technology; or

“(2) Record or possess a recording of such communication unless the person is a party to the communication or one (1) of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception and recording.”

Acts 2001, No. 1773, § 1, amended subsection (a) to read as follows:

“(a) It shall be unlawful for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or telephonic communication, defined as communications that utilize the electromagnetic spectrum frequencies of forty-six to forty-nine megahertz (46-49 mghz.) generally used by cordless telephone technology and eight hundred forty to eight hundred eighty megahertz (840-880 mghz.) generally used by cellular telephone technology or that utilize the wire, cable, or landline telephone facilities or telecommunications network, and to record or possess a recording of such communication unless such a person is a party to the communication or one (1) of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception and recording.”

Amendments. The 2001 amendment rewrote (a); in (c)(2), inserted “or company that … service to the public” and “wireless” following “wire”; in (c)(3), inserted “telecommunications provider” and made gender neutral changes; in (d), inserted “a telecommunications provider” and “or an amateur radio operator licensed by the Federal Communications Commission” and substituted “utility” for “utilities”; and added (e).

The 2003 amendment added (f) and (g).

Cross References. Wireless service theft prevention, § 5-36-301 et seq.

Research References

ALR.

Facial and As-Applied Validity of State Wiretapping Acts in Criminal Proceedings, 25 A.L.R.7th Art. 6 (2018).

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Survey of Legislation, 2001 Arkansas General Assembly, Criminal Law, 24 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 429.

Survey of Legislation, 2003 Arkansas General Assembly, Criminal Law, Computer Crimes, 26 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 361.

Case Notes

Evidence.

Defendant admitted he placed a recording device on his ex-wife's telephone and recorded her incoming and outgoing calls, and he also kept some of the recordings in his home. Based on a preponderance of the evidence and the plain language of this section, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court's revocation of defendant's probation. Lewis v. State, 336 Ark. 469, 986 S.W.2d 95 (1999).

—Admissibility of Unlawful Recording.

This section does not proscribe the admissibility of an unlawful recording of an electronic communication by a private citizen. Elliott v. State, 335 Ark. 387, 984 S.W.2d 362 (1998).

Defendant's motion in limine to exclude a taped audio recording of a telephone conversation between him and a detective was properly denied; although this section made the third party's recording of the conversation unlawful, it did not proscribe its admissibility, and defendant failed to argue 18 U.S.C. § 2515 to the circuit court. King v. State, 2019 Ark. 114, 571 S.W.3d 476 (2019).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2023 · leading case: King v. State, 571 S.W.3d 476 (Ark. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
King v. State, 571 S.W.3d 476 (Ark. 2019). · cites it 8× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-120 (a) ("It is unlawful .”
Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “310 ; Ark.Code Ann. § 5-60-120; Cal.Penal Code § 632(c); Mich.”
Lewis v. State, 986 S.W.2d 95 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 8× “Lewis finds it important that his ex-wife, whom he considers to be the “necessary witness,” was not called to testify, and therefore, each violation in the State’s petition to revoke his suspended sentence was unsupported, since each violation was directly attributed to the…”
State v. Mullens, 650 S.E.2d 169 (W. Va. 2007). · cites it 3× “(2001); Ark. Code § 5-60-120 (2005); Cal.Penal Code § 629.”
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001). “300 (d) (2000); Ark. Code Ann. §5-60-120 (1997); Cal. Penal Code Ann.”
Elliott v. State, 984 S.W.2d 362 (Ark. 1998). · cites it 4× “He also asserts that Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-120 (Repl. 1993) precluded the tape’s introduction.”
Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A., 191 F.3d 463 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “4th 506 , 1984 WL 263258 (1998). Arkansas does not separately prohibit THE DISCLOSURE OF INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATIONS, BUT ITS LAWS ACHIEVE A SIMILAR EFFECT BY MAKING IT A CRIME "TO RECORD OR POSSESS A RECORDING OF such communication.”
Lewis v. State, 970 S.W.2d 299 (Ark. Ct. App. 1998). “” Appellant’s own testimony was clearly sufficient to establish a violation of Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-60-120 (Repl. 1993), Interception and recording.”
Hammett v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs. LLC (E.D. Ark. 2022). “§ 5-60-120 (a). Thus, no rational juror could conclude that PRA, LLC “believe[d], or [was] substantially certain that [it] lack[ed] the necessary legal .”
Graham v. Butterball, LLC (W.D. Ark. 2023). “§ 5-60-120 ; 18 U.S.C. § 2511 . These statutes impose criminal penalties for violations.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-120(a) — 3 cases
State v. Mullens, 650 S.E.2d 169 (W. Va. 2007). “(2001); Ark. Code § 5-60-120 (2005); Cal.Penal Code § 629.”
Lewis v. State, 986 S.W.2d 95 (Ark. 1999). “Lewis finds it important that his ex-wife, whom he considers to be the “necessary witness,” was not called to testify, and therefore, each violation in the State’s petition to revoke his suspended sentence was unsupported, since each violation was directly attributed to the…”
Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A., 191 F.3d 463 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “4th 506 , 1984 WL 263258 (1998). Arkansas does not separately prohibit THE DISCLOSURE OF INTERCEPTED COMMUNICATIONS, BUT ITS LAWS ACHIEVE A SIMILAR EFFECT BY MAKING IT A CRIME "TO RECORD OR POSSESS A RECORDING OF such communication.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.