Indiana recording consent law for interviews: a sender or receiver may record

Indiana is a one-party consent state, but it gets there by a different route from most. Instead of a participant exception, Indiana defines the offense narrowly: IC 35-31.5-2-176 says "interception" means recording or acquiring the contents of an electronic communication "by a person other than a sender or receiver of that communication, without the consent of the sender or receiver." An interviewer on a phone screen or video call is a receiver of what the candidate says, so recording or transcribing their own interview is not interception under Indiana law. The statute is also built around transmitted communications, which leaves the in-person interview to federal law.

To check a call between Indiana and another state, use the consent checker.

Three definitions do the work

Indiana's wiretap article is IC 35-33.5. Its definitions sit in the general criminal definitions chapter, and three of them settle most interview questions:

• Interception (IC 35-31.5-2-176): "the intentional recording or acquisition of the contents of an electronic communication by a person other than a sender or receiver of that communication, without the consent of the sender or receiver." The definition expressly includes acquisition "through the use of a computer," which is how transcription software works.
• Electronic communication (IC 35-31.5-2-110): "any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, oral communication, digital information, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, a radio, or an electromagnetic, a photoelectronic, or a photo-optical system." Phone calls and video calls both fit.
• Sender or receiver. The statute does not define these, but on a two-way call each participant is both. The consent of either one is enough, which is the one-party rule in different words.

Notice what the definition leaves out. There is no separate category for a face-to-face "oral communication" that is never transmitted, and no purpose limit of the kind found in the federal statute. Both gaps are filled by federal law, discussed below.

Penalties and the civil claim

Indiana's statutory minimum is modest next to the federal one. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2520, a court may award statutory damages of the greater of $100 a day or $10,000 for a violation of the federal act, so a recording that breaks both laws carries the larger federal figure as an alternative.

In-person interviews and the federal backstop

Because Indiana's article is tied to transmitted communications, a conversation across a desk in Fort Wayne or Evansville appears to sit outside it. That is not the end of the analysis. The federal wiretap act covers "oral communication" uttered with a justified expectation of privacy, and its consent exception at 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) protects a participant only when the recording is not made "for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act." So an interviewer who is in the room may record under federal law too, and someone who leaves a phone running in an empty conference room to capture a panel they are not part of has a federal problem even if Indiana's article does not reach it.

The practical rule for on-site interviews is the same as for calls: tell the candidate before a laptop or phone starts capturing, and do not leave devices recording in rooms you have left.

Format by format

Indiana's borders: Chicago, Michigan, Louisville and Cincinnati

Indiana's geography makes cross-state calls routine. Northwest Indiana is part of the Chicago labor market, South Bend and Elkhart recruit from southwest Michigan, and Jeffersonville and Lawrenceburg sit across the river from Louisville and Cincinnati.

• Illinois. Recording a private conversation "in a surreptitious manner" without the consent of all parties is a felony. The test is secrecy, so recording openly with the candidate's agreement is the safe course; details are in Illinois eavesdropping law for interviews. Illinois also regulates AI analysis of video interviews for Illinois-based roles.
• Michigan. The statute requires "all parties," and whether that binds a participant is unsettled; see Michigan eavesdropping law and job interviews. Treat Michigan candidates as all-party.
• Ohio and Kentucky. Both are one-party for participants, so Cincinnati and Louisville calls rarely conflict with Indiana's rule. Ohio's details are in Ohio recording consent law for interviews.

A Merrillville staffing desk placing candidates in Chicago has the most exposure of any Indiana team, because the default assumption (the candidate is local) is often wrong in both directions. The general framework for which state's law applies is in recording calls across state lines.

Agency recruiters and client-run interviews

Staffing firms in Indianapolis and Carmel often line up a candidate for a client's interview and then step out. The Indiana definition makes the consent question concrete: an agency recruiter who is not on the client's call is neither a sender nor a receiver, so capturing it is interception unless the sender or receiver consented. In practice, that means the client's interviewer (a receiver) has to agree before anything is recorded on the agency's behalf, and federal law asks for the same thing as a participant's "prior consent."

The cleaner arrangement is to keep recording in the hands of the people running the interview. If the client wants the agency to have notes, the client's interviewer turns on capture, asks the candidate, and shares a summary afterward. If the agency wants its own record, the recruiter joins openly, is introduced, and asks. Either way the candidate knows who is listening, which avoids the question of whether a silent attendee counts as a receiver at all.

What to settle before you turn on a tool

1. Who is the receiver? A bot that joins on behalf of an interviewer who never shows up is not a sender or receiver, and nobody on your side consented.
2. Is it transcribing? Acquisition "through the use of a computer" is named in the definition. Text-only capture is still capture.
3. Where is the candidate today? Ask as part of scheduling, not on the call.
4. Who will see the output? Disclosing or using unlawfully intercepted contents is covered by the civil action, so share scorecards rather than raw recordings.
5. Is anything being scored? Recording law does not address analysis; check AI hiring laws by state.

A consent line for Indiana interviews

"One thing before we get going: I use a [recording / transcription]
tool on interviews so I'm not scribbling the whole time. It's kept
for the [role] search only and cleared out after [period]. If you'd
rather I didn't, no problem at all, it has no bearing on the
process. Okay to switch it on?"

[A clear yes: switch it on. Anything else: notes by hand.]

Indiana does not require the question for your own call. Illinois and Michigan, an hour's drive from much of the state, effectively do, and one consistent question is easier than sorting candidates by county. Variations for panels and email invitations are in the interview recording consent script.