MCL 750.539c Audio Recording Compliance for Process Servers

Published 2026-05-10 by Papers Delivered (Process Servers).

The Statute

Michigan Compiled Laws 750.539c, the eavesdropping/recording statute, makes it a felony for a person to "willfully use[] any device to eavesdrop upon a conversation without the consent of all parties thereto." The critical word is eavesdrop -- defined elsewhere in the statute as overhearing or recording a conversation in which the recording party is not a participant.

Michigan courts have consistently held that a party to the conversation can record the conversation without violating MCL 750.539c -- because they are not eavesdropping; they are recording their own conversation. This is the "one-party consent" reading. See Sullivan v Gray, 117 Mich App 476 (1982).

How This Applies to Process Service

When a process server hands a defendant a summons and says, "Mr. Smith, you are being served with legal documents," the server is a party to that conversation. The server's audio/video recording of that exchange is therefore lawful under MCL 750.539c -- and admissible in Michigan courts as evidence of service.

That single legal nuance is what enables our audio/video documentation product. Most other states are also one-party (e.g., New York, Ohio, Indiana) but Michigan's clear statutory + case-law framework makes the recording bulletproof here.

Why It Matters in Court

The most common defense attorneys hear in summary proceedings or default-judgment motions is, "I was never served." The defendant claims they never received the documents. Without recordings, you have only the server's notarized affidavit -- which the defendant's attorney will challenge. With timestamped audio + video showing the defendant accepting the documents at their door, the defense collapses.

Practical Workflow

Our process servers wear body-worn audio/video devices that capture:

• The approach to the address (establishes correct address)
• The door, the knock, and the response
• The verbal identification (server announces their role and the documents being served)
• The hand-off (or refusal/drop service if defendant declines)
• Time stamp, GPS coordinates, ambient context

The recording is uploaded to a tamper-evident storage system within hours. The notarized affidavit cites the recording with file hash and time stamp. Court-ready in 24 hours.

Common Misconceptions

"You need consent in Michigan." No -- you need consent of at least one party. The server provides their own consent. This is settled law.

"You can't record on private property." Recording on private property where you have lawful presence (knocking on a door, standing in a public hallway, doing your business) is generally lawful so long as you are a party to the conversation.

"You need to disclose you are recording." Michigan does not require disclosure for one-party recording. Some servers disclose anyway for ethical practice. Either approach is statutorily compliant.

Federal and Out-of-State Considerations

Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2511) is also one-party consent. For Michigan-issued service that crosses state lines (interstate evictions, out-of-state defendants), the recording party should be physically located in a one-party state at the time of recording. We confirm jurisdiction before every recording.

Related

• When the Defendant Avoids Service
• Substituted Service Under MCR 2.105
• 2026 Cost Guide