Recording the police in Oregon is lawful provided that you notify the officers that you are audio recording them. Video recording can be done without notification at all. This page is intended to provide you with a brief overview of why recording is important, and how you can do it lawfully.

“Why don’t the police use dash cameras (aka ‘dash cams’)?”

Some Oregon police departments have dash cams in their cars, but most do not. The police agencies that refuse to use dash cams typically provide any or all of the following excuses: (1) they don’t have the budgets to outfit their patrol cars with dash cams, and (2) they claim that the cameras aren’t durable, they break, or they require too much maintenance or media storage. In considering these excuses, also considering the following: (1) dash cams are affordable, cost less than three boxes of training ammunition, and the cost of maintaining them is negligible compared to other equipment installed in patrol vehicles, and (2) commercially-available dash cams are frequently used by trucking companies and cab companies without issues. It is only police officers who seem to claim that their equipment was working, or failed at a critical time.

“Why don’t police use body cameras?”

A very small number of Oregon police departments use body cameras, but the overwhelming majority do not. The police agencies that refuse to use body cameras typically provide any or all of the following excuses: (1) they don’t have the budgets to outfit their officers with body cameras, (2) they are worried that the use of body cameras will interfere with officer safety, and (3) they argue that people will be less likely to talk to the police if their conversation concerns a sensitive topic or information, and if they know they are being recorded. In considering these excuses, also considering the following: (1) body cameras are affordable, cost less than five boxes of training ammunition, and the cost of maintaining them is negligible compared to other equipment officers carry, (2) body cameras are small, wireless, and can be clipped onto a shirt, belt, or tactical vest, and they do not provide any more of a safety concern than the numerous other items officers are now attaching to their belts or clipping to their vests, and (3) statements to the police are not private, privileged, or currently protected anyway, so recording actual conversations would not prevent people form making statements to the police, or providing police with information.

“Why don’t the police want to be recorded?”

This is the real question. As much as police agencies like to make excuses for why they cannot make use of dash cams or body cameras, the real truth is that they don’t want to use this equipment. So the question becomes, “What are they afraid of?” Likely, three things: (1) police agencies are worried that video/audio recordings will show that they are engaging in unprofessional or illegal conduct, (2) they are worried that video/audio recordings will show that police officers statements or testimony are inconsistent with the video/audio recordings, and (3) the absence of video/audio recordings will cast doubt on the believably of police officers (the old, “our word is good-enough to always be believed” argument).

The last two years have really been pivotal in changing the minds of reasonable people as to police conduct. With the wide-spread availability of cell phones that can record video and audio, average citizens and the media have been able to see first-hand objective proof that: (1) officers sometimes lie, (2) officers sometimes misstate the facts, (3) officers sometimes act unprofessional, (4) officers sometimes engage in illegal conduct, (5) officers sometimes violate the civil rights of people being investigated, detained, or arrested, (6) officers sometimes use an inappropriate amount of force, and (7) in some extreme cases, officers literally murder and kill unarmed citizens. It goes without saying that any officer who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly engages in any of these behaviors listed above, would not want to be recorded.

“How do you record the police?”

Recording police encounters in Oregon is legal, but you should ideally provide notification to all parties to the conversation if you are recording audio. Video recording without audio is legal without notification (there is a crime of recording persons in states of undress and nudity in private settings, but that wouldn’t pertain to contact with the police). Here are some general tips to recording police contact:

Don’t talk to the police, and make sure there’s a recording of you telling the police that you don’t want to speak with them, and that you want to leave. Specifically ask them if you’re free to leave, and if you’re not, ask why you’re being detained. If you are not free to leave, tell the police that you want to speak with an attorney/lawyer, and that you don’t want to have any further communication with the police unless and until you speak with an attorney/lawyer.
If you must talk with the police, be polite. Keep in mind that you’re not only recording the police, but you’re recording yourself as well. If you sound argumentative or confrontational, you could end up being arrested for Interfering with a Peace Officer, Resisting Arrest, or Menacing.
Use a dedicated recording device if possible. If you use your cell phone to make the recording, there’s a possibility that an officer could lawfully or even unlawfully seize your phone as evidence. In some cases, this could result in the phone being held for months or even years as evidence, and it could also lead to the phone possibly being searched. If there is any incriminating or embarrassing material on your phone (e.g. other videos, photographs, text messages, emails, social media posts, or call logs), the contents could end up being incidentally disclosed. If possible, use a dedicated camera or digital voice recorder to record police encounters.
Keep your distance from the officer and avoid any movements or behavior that could be later argued by the officer as threatening his/her safety. Be mindful that the police officer is going to use any excuse he/she can to prevent you from recording them, charge you with a crime for recording them, and to then seize your recording device. Do not provide the officer with any suggestion that you were too close to them, interfering with their investigation of a third-party, or that you were physically doing anything that raised safety concerns.
If you must use your cell phone to record, consider using an app that uploads the audio and video online in real-time. This would provide preservation of the recording if a police officer were to lawfully or unlawfully seize your phone in an attempt to destroy the recording as evidence of police misconduct.
Consider installing a dash cam in your car. While this might sound extreme, there are now dash cams available for under one hundred dollars– less than a spare tire or a new stereo deck. If you’re a safe driver, a dash cam can not only protect you from false allegations by the police, but also might provide legal protection if you were involved in an accident where fault was at issue.
Lastly, backup any recordings you make and do not edit them. If there is a dispute as to what took place with the police, and if it’s known that you were recording the event, the fact that the audio/video went missing later or was edited, may cast a doubt on whether you are telling the truth about an event. Remember, that audio/video recordings go both ways: If the police don’t want to be recorded, it raises a question as to why not. If you don’t want to be recorded, it also raises a question as to why not.

Note: ORS 165.540 (Obtaining whole or part of communication) was updated, and became effective January 1st, 2020:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 or 133.726 or subsections (2) to (7) of this section, a person may not:
(a) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a telecommunication or a radio communication to which the person is not a participant, by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, unless consent is given by at least one participant.
(b) Tamper with the wires, connections, boxes, fuses, circuits, lines or any other equipment or facilities of a telecommunication or radio communication company over which messages are transmitted, with the intent to obtain unlawfully the contents of a telecommunication or radio communication to which the person is not a participant.
(c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.
(d) Obtain the whole or any part of a conversation, telecommunication or radio communication from any person, while knowing or having good reason to believe that the conversation, telecommunication or radio communication was initially obtained in a manner prohibited by this section.
(e) Use or attempt to use, or divulge to others, any conversation, telecommunication or radio communication obtained by any means prohibited by this section.
(2)(a) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) of this section do not apply to:
(A) Officers, employees or agents of a telecommunication or radio communication company who perform the acts prohibited by subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) of this section for the purpose of construction, maintenance or conducting of their telecommunication or radio communication service, facilities or equipment.
(B) Public officials in charge of and at jails, police premises, sheriffs’ offices, Department of Corrections institutions and other penal or correctional institutions, except as to communications or conversations between an attorney and the client of the attorney.
(b) Officers, employees or agents of a telecommunication or radio communication company who obtain information under paragraph (a) of this subsection may not use or attempt to use, or divulge to others, the information except for the purpose of construction, maintenance, or conducting of their telecommunication or radio communication service, facilities or equipment.
(3) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) of this section do not apply to subscribers or members of their family who perform the acts prohibited in subsection (1) of this section in their homes.
(4) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a) of this section do not apply to the receiving or obtaining of the contents of any radio or television broadcast transmitted for the use of the general public.
(5) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(c) of this section do not apply to:
(a) A person who records a conversation during a felony that endangers human life;
(b) A person who records a conversation in which a law enforcement officer is a participant, if:
(A) The recording is made while the officer is performing official duties;
(B) The recording is made openly and in plain view of the participants in the conversation;
(C) The conversation being recorded is audible to the person by normal unaided hearing; and
(D) The person is in a place where the person lawfully may be;
(c)(A) A person who, pursuant to ORS 133.400, records an interview conducted by a peace officer in a law enforcement facility; or
(B) A person who, pursuant to ORS 133.402, records a custodial interview, as defined in ORS 133.402;
(d) A law enforcement officer who is in uniform and displaying a badge and who is operating:
(A) A vehicle-mounted video camera that records the scene in front of, within or surrounding a police vehicle, unless the officer has reasonable opportunity to inform participants in the conversation that the conversation is being obtained; or
(B) A video camera worn upon the officer’s person that records the officer’s interactions with members of the public while the officer is on duty, unless:
(i) The officer has an opportunity to announce at the beginning of the interaction that the conversation is being obtained; and
(ii) The announcement can be accomplished without causing jeopardy to the officer or any other person and without unreasonably impairing a criminal investigation; or
(e) A law enforcement officer who, acting in the officer’s official capacity, deploys an Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology device that contains a built-in monitoring system capable of recording audio or video, for the duration of that deployment.
(6) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(c) of this section do not apply to persons who intercept or attempt to intercept with an unconcealed recording device the oral communications that are part of any of the following proceedings:
(a) Public or semipublic meetings such as hearings before governmental or quasi-governmental bodies, trials, press conferences, public speeches, rallies and sporting or other events;
(b) Regularly scheduled classes or similar educational activities in public or private institutions; or
(c) Private meetings or conferences if all others involved knew or reasonably should have known that the recording was being made.
(7) The prohibitions in subsection (1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of this section do not apply to any:
(a) Radio communication that is transmitted by a station operating on an authorized frequency within the amateur or citizens bands; or
(b) Person who intercepts a radio communication that is transmitted by any governmental, law enforcement, civil defense or public safety communications system, including police and fire, readily accessible to the general public provided that the interception is not for purposes of illegal activity.
(8) Violation of subsection (1) or (2)(b) of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(9) The exception described in subsection (5)(b) of this section does not authorize the person recording the law enforcement officer to engage in criminal trespass as described in ORS 164.243, 164.245, 164.255, 164.265 or 164.278 or to interfere with a peace officer as described in ORS 162.247.
(10) As used in this section:
(a) “Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology device” means a device that uses a high-voltage, low power charge of electricity to induce involuntary muscle contractions intended to cause temporary incapacitation. “Electro-Muscular Disruption Technology device” includes devices commonly known as tasers.
(b) “Law enforcement officer” has the meaning given that term in ORS 133.726.
ORS 165.540