South Dakota is a one-party consent state: if you are a sender, receiver, or party to a conversation, you may record it without telling anyone else.
A recording you made as a participant is generally usable in a South Dakota custody matter, subject to the court's discretion on relevance and authenticity. Recording a conversation you are not part of, without any party's consent, is a felony.
You may record a call or conversation you are part of.
Turn your calls into court-ready evidence
You may record a call you are part of. Copareo Secure Line captures, transcribes and time-stamps it — organized for your attorney.
$9.90 once · no subscription, nothing to cancel
Short answer: yes, if you are a sender, receiver, or party
South Dakota is a one-party consent state. If you are a sender or receiver of a communication, or a person present during a conversation, you may record it without telling anyone else involved. For a parent building an honest record of a co-parenting relationship, that means your own participation in a call or conversation is all the legal permission you need.
The statute and how it is written
S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35A-20 makes it a felony to use an eavesdropping device to overhear or record a communication, a conversation, or jury deliberations — but the statute is written as a list of who is not covered by the offense. It excludes “a sender or receiver of a communication” who records without the consent of the other sender or receiver, and separately excludes a person “present during a conversation or discussion” who records without the consent of a party to it. In plain terms, the statute defines the crime around people who are outsiders to the communication — if you are actually a party to the call or conversation, the felony was never written to reach you in the first place.
Confirmed by the state's own Supreme Court
South Dakota's one-party rule is not just a reading of the statute — it has been tested and confirmed by the South Dakota Supreme Court. In State v. Braddock, 452 N.W.2d 785 (S.D. 1990), the defendant argued that the one-party consent exemption should apply only to face-to-face conversations, not to phone calls. The court rejected that argument, holding that the consent of one party takes a communication out of the wiretap statute whether it happens by phone or in person. That means the one-party rule described here applies equally to a phone call with your co-parent and to an in-person conversation at a pickup or drop-off — South Dakota does not split the two the way some neighboring states do.
The penalty for getting it wrong
The exemption only covers communications you are actually a sender, receiver, or party to. Recording a conversation between two other people — for example, a device left running in a room you are not in, or a call you are not on — falls outside the statute and is a Class 5 felony, punishable by up to five years in a state correctional facility and a fine of up to $10,000. None of that exposure applies to your own calls and conversations with your co-parent; the risk is specifically for capturing conversations you are not part of, without any party's consent.
Using a recording in a South Dakota custody case
A recording you made as a sender, receiver, or participant is generally admissible in a South Dakota family court matter, in the sense that the recording statute itself does not bar it. The judge still decides how much weight to give it, based on relevance, whether the file is complete and unaltered, and how it was obtained. Keep the original audio, note the date and who was involved, and never trim or edit the file — an altered recording, even one lawfully made, can undercut your credibility with the court far more than the missing content would have helped your case.
The interstate caveat: what if your co-parent lives elsewhere?
South Dakota's rule, backed by Braddock, is one of the more clearly settled one-party regimes in the country. But if your co-parent lives in an all-party consent state — California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and several others — the cautious, generally accepted approach for a call that crosses state lines is to follow the stricter rule for the entire call: announce that you are recording, or otherwise make sure everyone knows. Which state's law would actually control a specific interstate call is a fact-specific legal question, not something this page can resolve for your situation. If your calls with your co-parent regularly cross state lines, confirm the current rule with a licensed attorney before relying on an unannounced recording.
How to document it so it holds up
A recording is one part of a record, not the whole case. Preserve the complete audio file rather than a short clip, keep the full text thread instead of a cropped screenshot, and attach accurate dates and times to everything you save. A consistent, contemporaneous history — calls, texts, and a simple log of what happened and when — is far harder for the other side to dispute than a single recording produced only after a bad argument.
Frequently asked questions
Do I have to tell my co-parent I am recording our calls in South Dakota?
No. Because you are a sender, receiver, or party to the call, your own participation is enough under § 23A-35A-20, as confirmed by the South Dakota Supreme Court in State v. Braddock. Announcing it is not legally required.
Does the one-party rule apply the same way to in-person conversations as to phone calls?
Yes. State v. Braddock specifically rejected the argument that one-party consent should be limited to face-to-face conversations, so the same rule covers a phone call and an in-person conversation at a custody exchange.
Can I record a conversation my child has with my co-parent if I am not on the call?
Only if you are actually a sender, receiver, or present party to that specific conversation. If you are not part of it and no party has consented, recording it falls outside the exemption and into felony territory. This is a genuinely fact-specific question involving a child — talk to a family law attorney about your household's situation.
What if the call happened before I started documenting things?
The recording law only governs how you capture communications going forward. It does not make an old, unrecorded conversation admissible after the fact. Start recording and logging from today, and preserve whatever authentic evidence — texts, emails, voicemails — already exists rather than reconstructing past events from memory.
How Copareo helps you document lawfully
Recording your own calls and conversations in South Dakota is lawful and well-settled, but a lawful recording only helps if it is preserved the right way. Copareo Secure Line routes your calls and texts with a co-parent through a dedicated line, time-stamps every exchange with a tamper-evident method, and seals it with a unique SHA-256 fingerprint. Everything is organized into a chain-of-custody record you can export as a single court-ready PDF with a table of contents — for $9.90 once, no subscription, nothing to cancel. See the full state-by-state recording law hub for other states, and read how to document co-parenting for court for the complete picture beyond recordings alone.
Not legal advice. This page summarizes South Dakota law for general information as of 2026-07-18 and is not a substitute for advice from a licensed South Dakota attorney. Recording and evidence rules change, and courts decide admissibility case by case. Verify against the official statute (S.D. Codified Laws § 23A-35A-20) and consult an attorney about your situation, especially for calls that cross state lines.