Colorado Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026

Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Colorado, and the state's one-party consent rule means you can record audio of any conversation you are participating in without notifying the other party. Video recording in public spaces is generally lawful. The legal lines are drawn at covert recording in private spaces and at using the glasses to capture intimate areas without consent.

Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Colorado?

Yes. Colorado has no statute that restricts owning, purchasing, or wearing smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses. The device is sold freely throughout the state and its possession raises no legal issue under Colorado or federal law.

The legal analysis starts only when the glasses are used to capture audio or video. At that point, the relevant questions are: What is being captured? Where is the recording taking place? Are you a party to any conversation being recorded?

Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces

Public spaces

Recording video in a public space is lawful in Colorado under both state and federal law. When a person is in a publicly accessible location, such as a street, sidewalk, park, retail store, or government building, they have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed.

The federal Wiretap Act defines an "oral communication" as an aural transfer containing the human voice under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation of privacy against interception. Silent video capture in a public space does not meet that definition. Colorado's own statutes track this same principle: the wiretap and eavesdropping provisions in C.R.S. 18-9-303 and 18-9-304 address the interception or overhearing of spoken communications, not video observation in public.

This means smart glasses worn while walking on a Denver sidewalk, at a farmers market, at a sporting event, or in a public government building generally do not create legal exposure from video capture alone.

Semi-public and private spaces

The analysis shifts in semi-public or private spaces. A private home, a hotel room, a medical examination room, or a closed-door meeting space carries a strong reasonable expectation of privacy. Even spaces that are technically accessible to others, such as a restaurant booth during a quiet conversation or a workplace conference room, can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of words spoken there.

Under the twofold requirement set out in Justice Harlan's concurring opinion in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), a person must have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and that expectation must be one society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Colorado courts apply this same framework when determining whether a space or conversation is "private" for purposes of the eavesdropping statutes.

Recording inside private places

Using smart glasses to observe or record another person's intimate parts without consent inside a private location, such as a home, a hotel room, or a medical office, can violate Colorado's criminal invasion of privacy law (C.R.S. 18-7-801) even without the sexual-gratification element required by C.R.S. 18-3-405.6. Section 18-7-801 is limited to a person's intimate parts, so covert video of a clothed person is not covered by it, although it can still create civil liability for intrusion upon seclusion.

Recording Audio and Colorado's One-Party Consent Rule

This is the central legal issue for smart glasses users in Colorado, and Colorado law is clear and relatively straightforward.

The statutes

Colorado has two eavesdropping statutes that work in tandem:

C.R.S. 18-9-303 (Wiretapping) governs electronic and telephone communications. It prohibits a person who is not a party to a communication from intercepting it without the consent of at least one sender or receiver. A party to the communication may record it.

C.R.S. 18-9-304 (Eavesdropping) governs in-person oral communications. It targets those who are "not visibly present" at a conversation and secretly record it without a principal party's consent. A person who is a visible participant in the conversation does not violate this statute by recording.

Together, these statutes establish a one-party consent rule: if you are a participant in the conversation (whether by phone, electronically, or in person), you may record it without disclosing the recording to the other party. The other party's consent is not required.

What one-party consent means for smart glasses

For a smart glasses wearer in Colorado, the one-party rule means:

• Recording a conversation you are having with someone at a coffee shop, in a business meeting, at a job interview, or during a personal exchange is lawful. You are a participant. Colorado law does not require you to disclose the recording.
• Recording your own interactions with police officers in a public encounter is lawful under the same principle. You are a party to the exchange.
• Recording a private conversation between two other people that you are not part of requires the consent of at least one party. Secretly recording someone else's discussion can violate C.R.S. 18-9-304 if you are not visibly present (for example, a hidden or left-behind device), or C.R.S. 18-9-303 if it is a telephone or electronic communication. The eavesdropping statute's text reaches only a person "not visibly present," but federal law and civil privacy claims may still apply to recording a private conversation you are not part of.

Federal alignment

The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) provides the same one-party consent baseline. Colorado's rule is at least as permissive as the federal minimum, so there is no conflict: a Colorado participant can record their own conversations lawfully under both state and federal law.

For a full analysis of Colorado's consent framework, see the Colorado Recording Laws page.

Where You Cannot Record: Voyeurism and Unlawful Surveillance

Regardless of the consent rules, Colorado law absolutely prohibits recording in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body or intimate conduct. The one-party consent rule does not override these prohibitions.

C.R.S. 18-3-405.6: Invasion of privacy for sexual gratification

C.R.S. 18-3-405.6 prohibits knowingly observing or photographing intimate body parts without the subject's consent, in a location where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, for the purpose of the observer's own sexual gratification. The sexual gratification element is required; incidental or non-sexual covert recording in a private space is not covered by this statute. Observing or photographing someone's intimate parts without consent where they reasonably expect privacy, without the sexual-gratification element, may instead be charged under C.R.S. 18-7-801. "Intimate body parts" includes genitalia, perineum, buttocks, and female breasts.

The penalty structure is:

• Base offense: Class 1 misdemeanor, carrying up to 364 days in jail and a fine of $500 to $5,000.
• Aggravated offense: Class 6 felony designated as an extraordinary risk crime under C.R.S. 18-1.3-401(10), carrying one to two years imprisonment and a fine of $1,000 to $100,000. Aggravated circumstances are: (1) a prior conviction for an unlawful sexual behavior offense, or (2) the depicted person is under 15 years of age and the defendant is four or more years older.

Locations where recording is always prohibited

The locations where this law applies most clearly include:

• Restrooms and public bathrooms
• Locker rooms and gym changing areas
• Fitting rooms in retail stores
• Private residences
• Hotel rooms and other temporary private lodgings
• Medical examination and treatment rooms

The covert appearance of smart glasses, which look exactly like ordinary eyewear to bystanders, does not create any exception to these prohibitions. The hidden nature of the recording can in fact aggravate the offense because it demonstrates deliberate concealment.

Federal law adds a parallel floor: 18 U.S.C. § 1801, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, separately prohibits capturing an image of a person's private areas without consent where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It applies within the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States," a defined federal term that is not the same as all federal property.

The rule is absolute: no location in Colorado, and no consent from any third party other than the person being filmed in their intimate area, can legalize recording someone's private body in a space where they reasonably expect not to be observed.

Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy in Colorado

Colorado does not have a standalone biometric privacy statute equivalent to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) or Texas's Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI). However, Colorado's privacy framework is not silent on the issue.

Colorado Privacy Act

The Colorado Privacy Act (CPA), C.R.S. 6-1-1301 et seq., covers "sensitive data" including biometric data that can identify a specific individual. Effective July 1, 2023, the CPA requires controllers (businesses that determine the purposes of data processing) to obtain opt-in consent before processing sensitive personal data, which includes biometric identifiers. The CPA applies to businesses that process the personal data of 100,000 or more Colorado consumers per year, or that derive revenue from selling personal data of 25,000 or more consumers.

For most individual smart glasses users, the CPA's controller thresholds will not be met. However, a business deploying smart-glasses-based facial recognition to identify customers or track individuals at scale could trigger CPA obligations.

The I-XRAY risk in Colorado

In October 2024, Harvard students demonstrated "I-XRAY": a system combining Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses with PimEyes, a reverse facial-recognition search engine, and AI to identify strangers in real time and retrieve home addresses and partial Social Security numbers within minutes. The demonstration used third-party software, not Meta's own systems.

A Colorado user who replicates this type of integration faces civil tort liability under common-law intrusion upon seclusion (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B) regardless of the CPA's business thresholds. The act of intentionally scanning and identifying a person without their knowledge in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person creates civil exposure even if no state biometric statute technically applies.

The three biometric states

Illinois (BIPA, 740 ILCS 14), Texas (CUBI, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 503.001), and Washington (RCW Chapter 19.375) are the three states with dedicated biometric laws most relevant to smart-glasses facial recognition. If you use your Colorado-purchased smart glasses in Illinois, you are immediately subject to BIPA's requirements, which carry statutory damages of $1,000 to $5,000 per person for capturing face geometry without written consent.

Penalties Summary

Colorado's wiretapping and eavesdropping penalties were updated by SB 21-271, effective March 1, 2022, which reorganized the state's sentencing structure.

At the federal level, the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) imposes up to 5 years imprisonment for criminal violations and civil liability of at least $10,000 in statutory damages per unlawful interception. The federal floor applies to any Colorado recording that also violates federal law.

Colorado also recognizes a civil cause of action for unlawful interception and invasion of privacy under state tort law. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B (intrusion upon seclusion), covert recording in a semi-private context can create civil liability even without publication of the footage.

Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Colorado

You can record your own conversations. Colorado's one-party rule means that as long as you are a genuine participant in the conversation, you may record it without disclosing that you are doing so. You do not need the other person's agreement.

Keep the capture LED visible. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in white LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. Colorado law does not currently mandate a recording indicator for wearable devices, but deliberately covering or obscuring the LED removes the one external signal that recording is occurring. Covering the LED can be used as evidence of intentional concealment in any legal dispute.

Disclose before recording formal meetings. Even though Colorado law permits undisclosed recording by a participant, disclosing the recording at the outset of any formal or sensitive meeting, such as a business negotiation, employment interview, or medical appointment, eliminates any ambiguity and avoids civil intrusion-upon-seclusion risk entirely.

Never record intimate areas or observe privately. C.R.S. 18-3-405.6 criminalizes recording intimate body parts for sexual gratification in any location where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy (Class 1 misdemeanor to Class 6 felony). C.R.S. 18-7-801 separately covers covert observation of intimate parts without the sexual gratification element (Class 2 misdemeanor). Remove the glasses before entering locker rooms, restrooms, fitting rooms, or other spaces where people have a clear expectation of privacy from visual observation.

Do not record others' conversations. Colorado's one-party rule protects participants, not bystanders. If two other people are having a private conversation that does not involve you, recording it without at least one party's consent risks eavesdropping charges under C.R.S. 18-9-304 (when you are not visibly present), federal Wiretap Act liability, and civil privacy claims.

Facial recognition adds risk. Colorado has no standalone biometric statute, but using smart glasses to identify strangers through a facial-recognition application exposes you to common-law tort liability. If the person identified resides in Illinois, Texas, or Washington, you may also face liability under those states' biometric statutes.

Driving. Colorado's distracted driving law (C.R.S. 42-4-239) is not limited to handheld phones. It defines a "mobile electronic device" as a handheld or portable device capable of voice communication, amusement, or the wireless transfer of data, and its definition of prohibited use includes watching a video or movie and writing, sending, or reading text-based communication on the device while driving. Smart glasses that display video or text messages could plausibly fall within that language, although the statute does not mention wearable displays by name. Navigation data is excluded from both the video and text prohibitions. Two provisions shape how the law is enforced: a charged driver cannot be convicted if they produce a hands-free accessory (or proof of buying one) and affirm under penalty of perjury that they have not previously had a charge dismissed on that basis, and an officer may cite a driver only after seeing them use a device in a way that caused careless and imprudent driving. The safest course is to limit smart-glasses use behind the wheel to navigation.

More Colorado Laws

• Colorado Data Privacy Laws
• Colorado Deepfake Laws
• Colorado Drone Laws
• Colorado Recording Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Colorado a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?

Colorado is a one-party consent state. Under C.R.S. 18-9-303 (wiretapping) and C.R.S. 18-9-304 (eavesdropping), a participant in a conversation may record it without notifying or obtaining consent from the other party. Recording a conversation you are not part of requires at least one party's consent.

Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in Colorado without telling the other person?

Yes, if you are a genuine participant in the conversation. Colorado's one-party consent rule means you do not need to disclose the recording or obtain the other person's agreement. The only condition is that you are actually participating in the conversation being recorded.

Can I secretly film someone with my smart glasses in Colorado?

In public spaces, video-only recording is generally lawful because people in public have a reduced expectation of privacy from being seen. In private spaces such as restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms, recording intimate body parts for sexual gratification without consent is a crime under C.R.S. 18-3-405.6, ranging from a Class 1 misdemeanor to a Class 6 felony. Observing or photographing someone's intimate parts without consent in a private location, without the sexual gratification element, may be charged as criminal invasion of privacy under C.R.S. 18-7-801, a Class 2 misdemeanor.

What are the penalties for illegal recording in Colorado?

Wiretapping and eavesdropping violations are Class 2 misdemeanors under SB 21-271 sentencing, carrying up to 120 days in jail and a $750 fine. Invasion of privacy for sexual gratification (C.R.S. 18-3-405.6) is a Class 1 misdemeanor (up to 364 days / $500-$5,000 fine) that escalates to a Class 6 felony extraordinary risk crime (1-2 years / up to $100,000) for aggravated circumstances. Criminal invasion of privacy (C.R.S. 18-7-801) is a Class 2 misdemeanor carrying up to 120 days and a $750 fine. Federal Wiretap Act violations add up to 5 years imprisonment and at least $10,000 in civil damages.

Does Colorado have a biometric privacy law that applies to smart glasses?

Colorado does not have a standalone biometric statute like Illinois BIPA or Texas CUBI. The Colorado Privacy Act (C.R.S. 6-1-1301 et seq.) covers biometric data as sensitive data and requires opt-in consent for processing, but its thresholds apply to businesses processing data of 100,000 or more consumers. Individual users are generally below the threshold, but common-law privacy torts still apply.

Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal in Colorado?

Yes, the device is legal to own and wear in Colorado. The legality of use depends on what you record, where, and whether you are a participant in any conversation you capture. Meta's capture LED provides external notice of recording, and deliberately covering it can be used as evidence of covert recording intent in a dispute.

Can I record a police officer with smart glasses in Colorado?

Yes. Recording police officers performing their duties in a public space is generally protected under the First Amendment. As a participant in any encounter such as a traffic stop or street interaction, Colorado's one-party consent rule also permits audio recording without disclosure. You cannot use the glasses to secretly record in private spaces, and you should not physically interfere with law enforcement activity while recording.

Does covering the recording LED on my smart glasses create legal problems?

Covering the LED is not itself a Colorado crime under current law, but it removes the only external signal that recording is occurring. In any legal dispute over covert recording, evidence that you deliberately covered the indicator light can be used to establish non-consensual recording intent. California SB 1130 would have criminalized LED cover-up in that state, but the Governor vetoed it on September 30, 2026, so California enacted no wearable-device recording rule and still applies its all-party consent law.