Utah
Utah Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 24, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 24, 2026. · 10 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Utah, but recording with them carries legal responsibilities tied to the state's one-party consent rule. Under Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4, you may record any conversation you are a party to without notifying the other participants, provided the recording is not made for a criminal or tortious purpose. Secretly recording a person's body without their knowledge or consent in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy is a separate criminal offense, and unlawful interception in Utah is generally a third-degree felony.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Utah?
Yes. Utah has no statute that restricts owning, purchasing, or wearing smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses. The device is freely sold throughout the state and its mere possession raises no legal issue under Utah or federal law.
The legal analysis begins only when the glasses are used to capture audio or video. The outcome depends on the content being recorded, the location, your role in any conversation being captured, and the purpose of the recording. One point to keep in mind: the criminal penalty for unlawful interception in Utah is generally a third-degree felony, not a misdemeanor.
Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces
Public spaces
Recording video in a public space is lawful in Utah under both state and federal law. When a person is in public, on a street, sidewalk, in a park, or in any location generally accessible to the public, they have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed. The federal Wiretap Act defines "oral communication" under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2) as speech uttered under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception. Silent video capture in public does not trigger that statute.
Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-3 defines "oral communication" to require that the speaker have a reasonable expectation that the conversation is private. Statements made on a public sidewalk, in an open park, at an outdoor event, or in any space where others can freely observe are generally outside the statute's protection. Smart glasses worn at a farmers market, on a hiking trail, at a public protest, or in a retail store create no legal exposure from video capture alone.
Semi-public and private spaces
The legal picture shifts in semi-public or fully private spaces. A private home, a medical office, a hotel room, or a closed conference room carries a strong reasonable expectation of privacy. Even spaces that are technically accessible to others, such as a workplace breakroom during a quiet one-on-one conversation or a restaurant booth during a private discussion, can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of spoken words exchanged there.
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), Justice Harlan's concurrence described a twofold requirement for a reasonable expectation of privacy: that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and that the expectation be one society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Utah courts apply this framework in determining whether a location or communication qualifies as private under the wiretap and voyeurism statutes.
Recording in private places
Utah Code Ann. 76-12-307 criminalizes intentionally using any type of technology to secretly or surreptitiously record an individual, without the individual's knowledge or consent, for the purpose of viewing any portion of the individual's body regarding which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Using smart glasses to secretly video-record someone's body inside a restroom, locker room, dressing room, private residence, or medical office can implicate that statute, and any audio captured can also implicate the wiretap prohibition. The covert appearance of smart glasses does not create any exception; if anything, a device designed to look like ordinary eyewear strengthens evidence of intentional concealment.
Recording Audio and Utah's One-Party Consent Rule
This is the load-bearing legal issue for smart glasses users in Utah.
The statute: Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4
Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4, the Utah Interception of Communications Act, mirrors the federal Wiretap Act but applies throughout the state regardless of whether a recording crosses state lines. The statute's general prohibition covers the willful interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication. The one-party consent exception permits interception when the person recording is a party to the communication, or when one party to the communication has given prior consent, and the interception is not made for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act.
In practice, a person wearing smart glasses who is part of a conversation, an employee speaking with a supervisor, a consumer on a phone call with a business, a person having an in-person discussion with a neighbor, may lawfully record that conversation in Utah without disclosing the recording to the other participants.
The criminal or tortious purpose carve-out
Utah's one-party exception includes a structural limit that mirrors the federal language under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) but carries independent state-law force. The exception does not apply when the recording is made "for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act." This means that if the purpose of the recording is to extort, defraud, defame, stalk, or otherwise harm another person, the consent exception does not apply and the recording becomes a third-degree felony.
This carve-out requires attention for smart glasses users because the glasses' covert appearance makes recordings whose purpose is to gain leverage over another person particularly problematic. The purpose element is assessed at the time of recording, not at the time the footage is later used.
What one-party consent does not cover
The one-party exception applies only when the recorder is a genuine participant in the communication. It does not protect:
- Using smart glasses to record a private conversation between two other people that the wearer is not part of.
- Secretly capturing oral communications of others in a private space where the wearer has no legitimate reason to be.
- Recording with the purpose of committing any criminal, tortious, or injurious act against another person.
- Planting a recording device and leaving the room. Utah courts have recognized that you must be present in the conversation at the time of recording; a device-only third-party interception is the core violation pattern under the statute.
Recording private conversations of others without participation is an unlawful interception under 77-23a-4 and a third-degree felony, carrying up to five years imprisonment and up to a $5,000 fine.
Practical application for smart glasses users
For a smart glasses wearer in Utah, the one-party consent rule means:
- Recording a conversation you are actively having with someone, at work, at home, over the phone, or in a restaurant, is lawful. You are a party. No disclosure is required under state law.
- Recording the private conversation of two other people you are not participating in is unlawful and a felony.
- Recording your own video content in public with no audio conversation being captured raises no consent issue at all.
- Interstate calls require extra caution. When either party to a call is in California (Penal Code § 632), Washington (RCW 9.73.030), or another all-party consent state, that state's stricter rule may govern the recording.
For a complete analysis of Utah's consent framework, see the Utah Recording Laws page.
Where You Cannot Record: Voyeurism Under Utah Code Ann. 76-12-307
Separately from the conversation-consent rules, Utah law prohibits secretly recording a person's body, without their knowledge or consent, under circumstances where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The statute: Utah Code Ann. 76-12-307
Utah Code Ann. 76-12-307 (renumbered from 76-9-702.7 by the Criminal Code Recodification Act, HB 21, effective May 7, 2025) criminalizes intentionally using any type of technology to secretly or surreptitiously record an individual, without the individual's knowledge or consent, for the purpose of viewing any portion of the individual's body regarding which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy (whether or not that portion is covered by clothing), under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The statute also provides that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy within a public restroom. The substantive elements and penalty classifications were unchanged by the renumbering.
The penalties under 76-12-307 are:
- Baseline: Class A misdemeanor, carrying up to 364 days imprisonment and a fine of up to $2,500.
- Third-degree felony (up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $5,000) when the offense is committed against a child under 14; in a sex-designated privacy space (such as a restroom or locker room) that is not designed for individuals of the actor's sex; or while also committing criminal trespass in a sex-designated changing room, lewdness, lewdness involving a child, or loitering in a privacy space.
Distribution of recordings obtained by voyeurism is separately criminalized at Utah Code Ann. 76-12-308, with enhanced penalties: third-degree felony for recordings depicting adults, and second-degree felony (1 to 15 years imprisonment) for recordings depicting children under 14.
Locations where the prohibition applies most clearly
The prohibition applies most clearly in restrooms, locker rooms, gym changing areas, fitting rooms, private residences, hotel rooms, and medical examination rooms. These are locations where persons have an unambiguous reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body. Smart glasses in these spaces are treated identically to any other recording device.
Federal law adds a parallel floor. 18 U.S.C. § 1801, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, separately prohibits recording a person's private areas on federal property without consent where there has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The covert design of smart glasses does not create any exception to the voyeurism prohibition. Because smart glasses are designed to look like ordinary eyewear, their use in a location where recording is prohibited is strong evidence of the intentional concealment element required by 76-12-307. The offense requires an actual secret recording made for the purpose of viewing a private portion of someone's body; simply wearing glasses into a locker room is not by itself the offense, but any recording made there invites exactly that scrutiny, so the safest course is to remove them.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy
Utah does not have a dedicated biometric privacy statute equivalent to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), Texas's Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI), or Washington's biometric identifier law (RCW Chapter 19.375).
Utah enacted the Utah Consumer Privacy Act (Utah Code Ann. 13-61-101 et seq.), which covers biometric data in commercial consumer contexts. However, the Consumer Privacy Act is an opt-out framework rather than a consent-first regime. It does not impose per-person statutory damages for each unauthorized face-geometry scan the way BIPA does. Enforcement runs through the Utah Division of Consumer Protection and the Attorney General; there is no private right of action under the Act.
Under Utah state law alone, using smart glasses with a facial recognition application to scan and identify strangers does not expose a person to the same direct statutory-damages risk that exists in Illinois (up to $5,000 per person per violation under BIPA) or the same AG-enforcement risk that exists in Texas (up to $25,000 per violation under CUBI). That said, Utah residents are not without recourse. Common-law privacy torts, particularly intrusion upon seclusion under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, apply regardless of any statute. An intentional intrusion upon someone's solitude or private affairs in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person creates civil liability even if no footage is ever shared. The act of covert recording is itself the intrusion.
The practical risk is greatest through third-party software integrations. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses provide a camera but do not natively run facial recognition. The legal exposure arises when a user pairs the glasses with a third-party reverse facial-recognition application. In October 2024, Harvard students demonstrated the "I-XRAY" system by combining Meta Ray-Ban glasses with a facial-recognition search engine to identify strangers in real time and retrieve home addresses and partial Social Security numbers within minutes. That demonstration used third-party software, not Meta's own systems. Utah users who build or use similar integrations face civil tort liability under intrusion-upon-seclusion and, if the footage is used to stalk or harass, criminal exposure under Utah's stalking statutes.
If a Utah smart glasses user captures the face of an Illinois, Texas, or Washington resident, those states' biometric laws may reach the conduct regardless of where the recording occurs. Consulting an attorney is warranted before any commercial deployment of facial recognition.
Penalties Summary
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful interception of oral communication | Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4 | Third-degree felony | 5 years / up to $5,000 fine |
| Use or disclosure of unlawfully intercepted communication | Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4 | Third-degree felony | 5 years / up to $5,000 fine |
| Voyeurism by recording (baseline) | Utah Code Ann. 76-12-307 | Class A misdemeanor | 364 days / up to $2,500 fine |
| Voyeurism by recording (child under 14, opposite-sex privacy space, or with trespass/lewdness/loitering offense) | Utah Code Ann. 76-12-307 | Third-degree felony | 5 years / up to $5,000 fine |
| Distribution of voyeurism recording (adult depicted) | Utah Code Ann. 76-12-308 | Third-degree felony | 5 years / up to $5,000 fine |
| Distribution of voyeurism recording (minor under 14 depicted) | Utah Code Ann. 76-12-308 | Second-degree felony | 1 to 15 years imprisonment |
Civil remedies under Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-11 are independent of criminal prosecution. A plaintiff may recover the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits, $100 per day of violation, or $10,000 (statutory floor), whichever is largest. The plaintiff may also recover punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees, and equitable relief. The two-year limitations period is a discovery rule: it starts when the claimant first had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.
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 for each unlawful interception.
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Utah
Confirm you are a participant before recording audio. Utah's one-party consent rule under 77-23a-4 protects only genuine participants in a conversation. If the other person is addressing you directly and you are exchanging words with them, you are a participant and the one-party rule applies. If you are positioning the glasses to capture a nearby conversation that does not involve you, you are outside the exception and face third-degree felony exposure.
Keep the purpose lawful. Utah's criminal-or-tortious-purpose carve-out means the one-party exception does not shield recordings made to extort, defame, harass, or stalk another person. The purpose is assessed at the time of recording. If the reason you are recording could be characterized as harming the other party rather than protecting a legitimate interest, do not record.
Keep the LED active. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in white capture LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. Utah law does not currently mandate recording indicators for wearables, but deliberately covering the LED removes the only visible signal that recording is occurring. This strengthens evidence of non-consensual covert recording intent if a dispute arises.
Disclose before sensitive meetings. Utah law does not require you to disclose recordings of conversations you are part of, but disclosing the recording at the outset of any formal or sensitive meeting, such as a job interview, a medical appointment, or a legal consultation, eliminates ambiguity about consent, avoids civil intrusion-upon-seclusion exposure entirely, and protects the admissibility of the recording if you later need to use it.
Never record in private spaces. Under 76-12-307, secretly recording a person's body without consent where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy is a crime, and the statute states that a person has that expectation in a public restroom. Remove the glasses before entering locker rooms, restrooms, changing rooms, or any other space where people reasonably expect not to be observed. The felony-level penalties for aggravated voyeurism and the distribution penalties under 76-12-308 make any recording in these spaces extremely consequential.
Watch for cross-border calls. Utah's one-party consent rule governs conversations where both parties are in Utah. When either party to a call is located in an all-party consent state such as California, Washington, or Oregon, the stricter law of the other state may apply. If you are in Utah but the other party is in California (Penal Code § 632) or Washington (RCW 9.73.030), their all-party consent requirement may govern. When in doubt, disclose or confirm the other party's location before recording begins.
Driving caution. No Utah statute as of June 2026 specifically addresses wearable display devices while driving. Navigation use through smart glasses is analogous to a mounted GPS unit. Using smart glasses for live streaming, social media posting, or video calls while driving raises the same distracted-driving exposure as any electronic device and remains legally unsettled.
More Utah Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Utah a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
Utah is a one-party consent state under Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4. If you are a participant in a conversation, you may record it without notifying the other parties. The exception does not apply when the recording is made for a criminal or tortious purpose.
Can I record a conversation with my smart glasses in Utah without telling the other person?
Yes, provided you are a genuine participant in the conversation. Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4 permits a party to the communication to record it without the other participants' knowledge. You may not use this exception to record conversations you are not part of, and the purpose of the recording must not be criminal or tortious.
What is the penalty for illegal recording in Utah?
Unlawfully intercepting an oral communication under Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4 is a third-degree felony carrying up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $5,000. Civil remedies under 77-23a-11 separately allow a plaintiff to recover the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, plus actual damages, the violator's profits, punitive damages, and attorney fees.
Can I secretly film someone with smart glasses in Utah?
In public spaces, video-only recording is generally lawful. Secretly recording a person's body without their knowledge or consent, for the purpose of viewing a part of the body they expect to keep private, under circumstances where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, is a crime under Utah Code Ann. 76-12-307. The offense is generally a Class A misdemeanor, and a third-degree felony when committed against a child under 14, in a sex-designated privacy space not designed for the actor's sex, or together with offenses such as lewdness or loitering in a privacy space. The covert appearance of smart glasses does not create any exception.
Does Utah have a biometric privacy law for smart glasses?
Utah's Consumer Privacy Act (Utah Code Ann. 13-61-101 et seq.) covers biometric data in commercial contexts but is an opt-out framework without per-person statutory damages. It is far less restrictive than Illinois BIPA. Using smart glasses with facial recognition in Utah does not carry the same direct $1,000 to $5,000 per-person statutory exposure that exists in Illinois, but common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion torts still apply.
Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal to use in Utah?
The device is legal to own and wear. The legality of use depends on what you record, where, and your role in any conversation you capture. Meta's capture LED provides an external recording indicator. Utah law does not mandate its use, but deliberately covering it strengthens evidence of covert non-consensual recording intent.
What happens if I record someone in Utah who is in California or Washington?
Both California (Penal Code § 632) and Washington (RCW 9.73.030) are all-party consent states. When a call or conversation includes a participant located in either state, that state's stricter rule may govern the recording. Utah's one-party consent does not insulate you from another state's law if the other party is in an all-party state. Disclosing the recording before it begins is the safest approach for any cross-border conversation.
Can I record police officers with smart glasses in Utah?
Recording police officers performing their duties in a public space is generally protected under the First Amendment. The Tenth Circuit recognized this clearly established right as of May 26, 2019 in Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022). As a participant in any encounter, Utah's one-party consent rule also permits audio recording. You cannot use the glasses to record in private spaces, and you should not physically interfere with any law enforcement activity.
Does Utah's voyeurism law apply to smart glasses recordings?
Yes. Utah Code Ann. 76-12-307 criminalizes intentionally using any technology to secretly record a person, without their knowledge or consent, for the purpose of viewing a part of their body they reasonably expect to keep private, under circumstances where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Smart glasses are subject to this statute exactly as any other recording device. Wearing glasses into a locker room or restroom is not by itself the offense, but any secret recording made there invites criminal scrutiny, so remove them before entering.
What is the voyeurism distribution penalty in Utah?
Under Utah Code Ann. 76-12-308, distributing a recording obtained through voyeurism is a third-degree felony (up to 5 years) when depicting an adult, and a second-degree felony (1 to 15 years imprisonment) when depicting a child under 14. These penalties apply independently of the underlying recording offense under 76-12-307.
Updates
Corrected the description of Utah's recorded voyeurism statute (Utah Code 76-12-307) to state its actual elements: a secret recording made without consent for the purpose of viewing a part of the body the person reasonably expects to keep private.
Corrected the description of Katz v. United States to attribute the two-part expectation-of-privacy test to Justice Harlan's concurrence, as the opinion shows.
Corrected the voyeurism penalty description to list every circumstance that makes the offense a felony under Utah Code 76-12-307 and removed an unsupported comparison of Utah's wiretap penalty to other states.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Utah Code, Title 77: Criminal Procedure
§ 77-23a-4Offenses -- Criminal and civil -- Lawful interception.In forcecited in 19 of our articles
(1) (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who violates Subsection (1)(b) is guilty of an offense and is subject to punishment under Subsection (10), or when applicable, the person is subject to civil action under Subsection (11). (b) A person commits a violation of this subsection who: (i) intentionally or knowingly intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication; (ii) intentionally or knowingly uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication, when the device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication or when the device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of the communication; (iii) intentionally or knowingly discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Wood (2023) held a jail's recording of inmate calls fell within the consent exception in section 77-23a-4(7)(a) because the inmate impliedly consented by using phones he was told were monitored. The Quarasan Group, Inc. v. Nozani, LLC (2020) dismissed an eavesdropping claim once Utah law governed and did not bar the recording.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Wood (Utah Supreme Court 2023, 532 P.3d 997)✓A jail recorded an inmate's calls to his wife after warning him by handbook, placard and a message before each call; the Utah Supreme Court held he impliedly consented, so the interception fell within section 77-23a-4(7)(a) and suppression was denied.
- State v. Draughon (Court of Appeals of Utah 2026, 2026 UT App 52)“…rties to the call—consented to the call being recorded. See Utah Code §§ 77-23a-4(7)(b), -7. He claims Counsel should hav…”
- United States v. Maynard (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2010, 615 F.3d 544)“…ined by the police acting pursuant to a warrant. See, e.g., Utah Code Ann. §§ 77-23a-4, 77-23a-7, 77-23a-15.5; Minn Stat §§ 62…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Utah AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Utah Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide), Utah Windshield Mounting Laws (2026 Guide)
§ 77-23a-11Civil remedy for unlawful interception -- Action for relief.In forcecited in 8 of our articles
(1) Except under Subsections 77-23a-4(3), (4), and (5), a person whose wire, electronic, or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover relief as appropriate from the person or entity that engaged in the violation. (2) In an action under this section appropriate relief includes: (a) preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as is appropriate; (b) damages under Subsection (3) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and (c) a reasonable attorney's fee and reasonably incurred litigation costs.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
Also relied on in: Utah Audio Recording Laws, Utah Phone Call Recording Laws, Utah Workplace Recording Laws
§ 77-23a-3Definitions.In forcecited in 3 of our articles
As used in this chapter: (1) "Aggrieved person" means a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, electronic, or oral communication, or a person against whom the interception was directed. (2) "Aural transfer" means any transfer containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception. (3) "Communications common carrier" means any person engaged as a common carrier for hire in intrastate, interstate, or foreign communication by wire or radio, including a provider of electronic communication service. However, a person engaged in radio broadcasting is not, when that person is so engaged, a communications common carrier. (4) "Contents" when used with respect to any wire, electronic, or oral communication includes any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Wood (Utah Supreme Court 2023, 532 P.3d 997)“…7-23a- 4(7)(a); 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c) (consent exception); UTAH CODE § 77-23a-3(8)(a)(ii); 18 U.S.C. § 2510(5)(a)(ii) (…”
- State v. Hebeishy (Court of Appeals of Utah 2022, 522 P.3d 943)“…ted on the telephone line to which the device is attached.” Utah Code Ann. § 77-23a-3(14) (LexisNexis 2017). 20200463-CA…”
- Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidt (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2023, 72 F.4th 1043)“…(c)(4); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 18A.001(19) Utah: Utah Code Ann. §§ 77-23a-3(13), 77-23a-4(1)(b)(i), (7)(b) Virginia…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Utah Code, Title 76: Criminal Offenses
§ 76-12-307Recorded or photographed voyeurism.In forcecited in 14 of our articles
(1) (a) As used in this section, "sex-designated privacy space" means the same as that term is defined in Section 76-12-309. (b) Terms defined in Sections 76-1-101.5, 76-12-101, and 76-12-301 apply to this section. (2) An actor commits recorded or photographed voyeurism if the actor intentionally uses any type of technology to secretly or surreptitiously record, by video, photograph, or other means, an individual: (a) for the purpose of viewing any portion of the individual's body regarding which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether or not that portion of the body is covered with clothing; (b) without the knowledge or consent of the individual; and (c) under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. (3) (a) Except as provided in Subsection(3)(b), a violation of Subsection (2) is a class A misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
Also relied on in: Utah Drone Laws (2026): Police Warrants, Prisons & Privacy, Utah Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Surveillance and Social Media (2026), Utah Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
§ 76-12-308Distribution of images obtained through voyeurism.In forcecited in 5 of our articles
(1) (a) As used in this section, "image" includes print, electronic, magnetic, or digital format. (b) Terms defined in Sections 76-1-101.5, 76-12-101, and 76-12-301 apply to this section. (2) An actor commits distribution of images obtained through voyeurism if the actor distributes or sells an image obtained by conduct in violation of Section 76-12-307, Recorded or photographed voyeurism, by transmission, display, or dissemination. (3) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (3)(b), a violation of Subsection (2) is a third degree felony. (b) A violation of Subsection (2) is a second degree felony if the image is of a child under 14 years old.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
Also relied on in: Utah Video Recording Laws, Utah Voyeurism Laws
§ 76-3-203Felony conviction -- Indeterminate term of imprisonment.In forcecited in 8 of our articles
A person who has been convicted of a felony may be sentenced to imprisonment for an indeterminate term as follows: (1) In the case of a felony of the first degree, unless the statute provides otherwise, for a term of not less than five years and which may be for life. (2) In the case of a felony of the second degree, unless the statute provides otherwise, for a term of not less than one year nor more than 15 years. (3) In the case of a felony of the third degree, unless the statute provides otherwise, for a term not to exceed five years.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
Cited in 79 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Speer (Utah Supreme Court 1988, 74 Utah Adv. Rep. 16)“…avated assault. In sentencing defendant, the judge applied Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-203 (1) (1978), which adds an additional ye…”
- State v. Alvarez (Utah Supreme Court 1994, 235 Utah Adv. Rep. 61)“…"not less than five years ... and which may be for life." Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-203 . For first degree felonies, section 76…”
- State v. Labrum (Utah Supreme Court 1996, 293 Utah Adv. Rep. 19)“…firearm and gang sentence enhancements in accordance with Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-3-203 and 76-3-203.1. The gang sentence enha…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 76-3-301Fines of individuals.In forcecited in 8 of our articles
(1) An individual convicted of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine, not exceeding: (a) $10,000 for a felony conviction of the first degree or second degree; (b) $5,000 for a felony conviction of the third degree; (c) $2,500 for a class A misdemeanor conviction; (d) $1,000 for a class B misdemeanor conviction; (e) $750 for a class C misdemeanor conviction or infraction conviction; and (f) any greater amounts specifically authorized by statute. (2) (a) An individual convicted of a misdemeanor or infraction and sentenced to pay a fine may not be charged by a court: (i) notwithstanding Section 15-1-4, interest on the judgment that in the aggregate is more than 25% of the initial fine; or (ii) that issues an order to show cause under Section 78B-6-317 for failure to pay the fine, interest that is more than 25% of the initial fine. (b) An individual convicted only of an infraction and sentenced to pay a fine may not be charged: (i) by the Office of State Debt Collection, late fees and interest that in the aggregate are more than 25% of the initial fine; or (ii) by a third-party debt contractor of the Office of State Debt Collection, additional fees.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Weeks (Utah Supreme Court 2002, 458 Utah Adv. Rep. 3)“…on), the judge could have fined Weeks up to $12,500, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-301 (b) to (e) (1999) (stating that a perso…”
- State v. Mitchell (Court of Appeals of Utah 1991, 175 Utah Adv. Rep. 77)“…of a firearm. Defendant was also fined $10,000 pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-301 (a) (1990). Defendant claimed hi…”
- Planned Parenthood Association v. State (Utah Supreme Court 2024, 554 P.3d 998)“…sk of monetary fines and up to fifteen years in prison. See UTAH CODE §§ 76-3-301(1)(a), 76-7a-201(3). SB 174 further req…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Utah Code, Title 13: Commerce and Trade
§ 13-61-101Definitions.In forcecited in 7 of our articles
As used in this chapter: (1) "Account" means the Consumer Privacy Restricted Account established in Section 13-61-403. (2) "Affiliate" means an entity that: (a) controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with another entity; or (b) shares common branding with another entity. (3) "Aggregated data" means information that relates to a group or category of consumers: (a) from which individual consumer identities have been removed; and (b) that is not linked or reasonably linkable to any consumer. (4) "Air carrier" means the same as that term is defined in 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40102. (5) "Authenticate" means to use reasonable means to determine that a consumer's request to exercise the rights described in Section 13-61-201 is made by the consumer who is entitled to exercise those rights. (6) (a) "Biometric data" means data generated by automatic measurements of an individual's unique biological characteristics.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
Also relied on in: Utah Biometric Privacy Laws: Collection, Consent & Penalties (2026), What Is the UCPA? Utah Consumer Privacy Act Explained, Utah Data Privacy Laws: UCPA Consumer Rights Guide (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 137 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Surveillance Camera Laws by State (2026 Guide), US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, Hawaii Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent State Rules
§ 1801Video voyeurismIn forcecited in 81 of our articles
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. In this section— the term “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast; the term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual; the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means— circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or circumstances in which a…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 53 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have applied 18 U.S.C. 1801 mainly at its edges. United States v. Johnson (2010) read it as Congress's answer to secretly filming nudity on federal property, acquitting on a child exploitation charge instead. EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security (2011) applied the Section 1801(c) law enforcement exception to a TSA scanner claim.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Anthony Helton (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2019, 944 F.3d 198)“…from this list of federal offenses is video voyeurism under 18 U.S.C. § 1801. Rather than list this statute as an enu…”
- United States v. Johnson (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2010, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1059)✓A weightlifting coach hid a camera to film minors weighing in nude; acquitting him under the child exploitation statute, the court called that conduct plain video voyeurism under section 1801, but noted the section reaches only federal maritime and territorial jurisdiction.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2011, 653 F.3d 1)✓Privacy groups challenged TSA body scanners under the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act; the D.C. Circuit held the statute's exception for lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity applied to airport screening, so the section 1801 claim failed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Voyeurism Laws, Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), California Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)
Revised Code of Washington
§ 9.73.030Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication—Consent required—Exceptions.In forcecited in 46 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication; (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 221 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Washington courts have policed what counts as a private communication under Sec. 9.73.030: State v. Gunwall (1986) concluded a pen register intercept comes within a private communication transmitted by telephone, while State v. Riley (1993) held a line trap that reveals only the calling number does not record one.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Salinas (Washington Supreme Court 1992, 119 Wash. 2d 192)“…alties for divulging a telegram or opening a sealed letter. RCW 9.73.030-.070, making it unlawful to intercept,…”
- State v. Gunwall (Washington Supreme Court 1986, 106 Wash. 2d 54)✓Everett police pulled a suspected cocaine dealer's toll records and put a pen register on her line without valid legal process; the court held a pen register intercept is a private communication transmitted by telephone, installable only under the eavesdropping statutes.
- State v. Brown (Washington Supreme Court 1997, 132 Wash. 2d 529)✓Palm Springs officers secretly recorded a Washington murder suspect's statements after his arrest; the court treated RCW 9.73.090, not 9.73.030, as the provision reaching recordings of arrested persons, and held the Privacy Act did not require suppressing that recording.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026), Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4 (Utah Interception of Communications Act, offenses, criminal and civil, lawful interception). One-party consent exception; unlawful interception is a third-degree felony: up to 5 years imprisonment and up to $5,000 fine.(le.utah.gov).gov
- Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-3 (definitions). Defines 'oral communication' to require a reasonable expectation of privacy, establishing that public statements fall outside the statute.(le.utah.gov).gov
- Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-11 (recovery of civil damages). Greater of actual damages plus profits, $100/day, or $10,000 statutory floor; plus punitive damages, attorney fees, litigation costs, equitable relief. Two-year discovery-rule SOL.(le.utah.gov).gov
- Utah Code Ann. 76-12-307 (recorded or photographed voyeurism, eff. May 7, 2025, renumbered from 76-9-702.7 by HB 21). Class A misdemeanor (adult); third-degree felony (minor under 14).(le.utah.gov).gov
- Utah Code Ann. 76-12-308 (distribution of voyeurism recording, eff. May 7, 2025). Third-degree felony (adult); second-degree felony (minor under 14).(le.utah.gov).gov
- Utah Code Ann. 76-3-203(3) (felony sentencing). Third-degree felony: maximum 5 years imprisonment.(le.utah.gov).gov
- Utah Code Ann. 76-3-301 (fines). Third-degree felony: maximum $5,000. Class A misdemeanor: maximum $2,500.(le.utah.gov).gov
- Utah HB 21 (2025) - Criminal Code Recodification. Renumbered voyeurism from 76-9-702.7 to 76-12-307, viewing-only to 76-12-306, and distribution to 76-12-308. Effective May 7, 2025.(le.utah.gov).gov
- Utah Consumer Privacy Act, Utah Code Ann. 13-61-101 et seq. Covers biometric data in commercial contexts as opt-out framework. No private right of action; no per-person statutory damages.(le.utah.gov).gov
- Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022). Recognized the clearly established First Amendment right to film police performing public duties as of May 26, 2019. Controlling authority for Utah.(ca10.uscourts.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Federal Wiretap Act). One-party consent exception at § 2511(2)(d); criminal penalty up to 5 years; civil liability at least $10,000 per unlawful interception.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2) (Definition of oral communication). Basis for the rule that silent video-only recording in public is not a Wiretap Act violation.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. § 1801 (Federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act). Prohibits recording private areas of individuals on federal property without consent.(law.cornell.edu)
- Meta Ray-Ban AI Glasses official privacy page. Documents the capture LED notification system and Meta's guidance on responsible use.(meta.com)