Wyoming Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2025

Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Wyoming, 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 Wyoming?

Yes. Wyoming 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 Wyoming 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?

Wyoming is a large, rural state with a strong tradition of individual liberty, but its wiretap statute imposes real criminal penalties on non-participant recording, and its camera voyeurism law is a serious felony. Smart glasses users in Wyoming need to understand both rules before pointing the lens at anyone.

Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces

Public spaces

Recording video in a public space is lawful in Wyoming under both state and federal law. When a person is in a publicly accessible location, such as a street, sidewalk, park, ranch land that is open to the public, a state capitol building, or a retail store, 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. Wyoming's own interception statute tracks the same principle: the prohibitions in Wyo. Stat. 7-3-702 address the interception of oral and electronic communications, not video observation in open public areas.

This means smart glasses worn while walking on a Cheyenne sidewalk, at a rodeo, at an outdoor market, or in a state 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.

In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), Justice Harlan's concurrence described a twofold requirement: a person must have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and that expectation must be one society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Wyoming courts apply this same framework when determining whether a space or conversation is protected for purposes of the state's interception and voyeurism statutes.

Recording inside private places

Using smart glasses to secretly video-record someone, without consent, in an area where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a bathroom, shower, dressing room, or bedroom, can trigger Wyoming's camera voyeurism statute (Wyo. Stat. 6-4-304) even before any audio interception analysis is required. The statute is aimed at clandestine, surreptitious, prying, or secretive viewing; not every recording made inside a home or hotel room is a crime. But covert video recording of someone in a space where they reasonably expect privacy is treated as a serious felony, not a technical compliance issue.

Recording Audio and Wyoming's One-Party Consent Rule

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

The statute

Wyoming's interception statute is codified at Wyo. Stat. 7-3-702. The general rule prohibits the intentional interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. The participant exception is set out in subsection (b)(iv): it is not unlawful for a person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where that person is a party to the communication, or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception, provided the interception is not made for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act.

This is Wyoming's one-party consent rule. If you are participating in the conversation, you may record it. The other party's consent is not required.

What one-party consent means for smart glasses

For a smart glasses wearer in Wyoming, 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. Wyoming 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 capturing someone else's discussion when you are not participating is a criminal violation.

The criminal or tortious purpose bar

The participant exception contains an important limitation: the recording must not be made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. A person who records a conversation specifically in order to extort, blackmail, or defame the other party loses the protection of the one-party exception, even if they are a participant in the conversation. This bar prevents the consent exception from being used as a shield for illegal schemes.

Federal alignment

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

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

Where You Cannot Record: Wyoming's Camera Voyeurism Statute

Regardless of the consent rules, Wyoming law makes it a crime to secretly view or record someone, without their consent, in an area where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The one-party consent rule does not override these prohibitions.

Wyo. Stat. 6-4-304: Voyeurism and camera voyeurism

Wyoming's voyeurism statute at Wyo. Stat. 6-4-304 creates a tiered offense structure based on how the observation or recording occurs and who the victim is.

The base offense covers knowingly observing another person in a private place, such as a restroom, locker room, or changing area, without their consent. This is a misdemeanor.

The camera-recording tier is a felony. When the offense is committed by knowingly or intentionally capturing an image with a camera, video camera, or other image recording device, the offense escalates to a felony carrying up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $5,000. The Wyoming Supreme Court in Kobielusz v. State (2024) clarified that this felony tier is satisfied by the act of capturing the image itself. A prosecutor does not need to prove the defendant later viewed the footage.

When the perpetrator is 18 or older and the victim is under 18, the enhanced felony tier applies, carrying up to 10 years imprisonment.

Locations the statute names

Wyo. Stat. 6-4-304(a) lists examples of areas where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, without limiting the offense to them:

• Restrooms
• Baths
• Showers
• Dressing or fitting rooms
• Bedrooms

Subsection (a) also reaches viewing under a person's clothing wherever they are. Other places with a comparable expectation of privacy, such as locker rooms, can qualify as well. The offense requires secret viewing or recording without consent, so openly recording in a home or hotel room is not automatically a crime.

The covert appearance of smart glasses, which look exactly like ordinary eyewear to bystanders, does not create any exception to these prohibitions. Because Kobielusz holds that capturing the image is sufficient for the felony tier, secretly recording someone in such a location with smart glasses without consent, even briefly, satisfies the statute. There is no requirement that the wearer have intended to view or distribute the footage.

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. Its reach is limited to the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, not every federal building or all federal property.

The rule is absolute: no location in Wyoming, and no third-party consent, can legalize recording someone's intimate areas in a space where they reasonably expect not to be observed.

Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy in Wyoming

Wyoming 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).

Under Wyoming state law alone, using a smart glasses facial recognition application to scan and identify strangers does not trigger a standalone biometric statute the way it would in Illinois, where BIPA imposes up to $5,000 per person in statutory damages for capturing face geometry without written consent, or Texas, where CUBI allows civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation for commercial capture without consent.

Wyoming residents and visitors are not without recourse, however. The federal Wiretap Act, common-law privacy torts, and the general principles of intrusion upon seclusion still apply. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652B, intentionally intruding upon the solitude or seclusion of another person in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person creates civil liability regardless of whether any state biometric statute applies. The act of covert recording itself can create that liability without requiring that the footage be published or shared.

The biometric risk is most acute 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 facial recognition application to identify strangers. In October 2024, Harvard students demonstrated the "I-XRAY" system by pairing Meta Ray-Ban glasses with a reverse 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. Wyoming users who replicate this type of integration face civil tort liability and, if the information is used for harassment or stalking, potential criminal exposure under Wyoming's criminal statutes.

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 Wyoming-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

Wyoming's penalties for unlawful interception are among the more significant in the one-party consent category, with a felony classification and civil liability that accrues per day.

Civil liability for unlawful interception is separately available under Wyo. Stat. 7-3-710(a): actual damages, but not less than $1,000 per day for each day of violation, plus punitive damages and attorney fees. The per-day civil liability means that ongoing surveillance, as opposed to a single interception event, can generate substantial damages quickly.

At the federal level, the Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) imposes up to 5 years imprisonment for criminal violations. In a civil suit under 18 U.S.C. § 2520(c)(2), a court may award the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits, or statutory damages of the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000.

Wyoming also recognizes civil liability 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 Wyoming

You can record your own conversations. Wyoming'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. Wyoming 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 Wyoming law permits undisclosed recording by a participant, disclosing the recording at the outset of any formal or sensitive meeting eliminates any ambiguity and avoids civil intrusion-upon-seclusion risk entirely.

Never record in private spaces. The prohibitions under Wyo. Stat. 6-4-304 on recording intimate areas or activities in private locations are felonies. Remove the glasses before entering locker rooms, restrooms, fitting rooms, or other spaces where people have a clear expectation of privacy from visual observation. Under Kobielusz, capturing the image is sufficient for the felony; you do not need to view or share it.

Do not record others' conversations. Wyoming's one-party rule protects participants, not bystanders. If two other people are having a private conversation that does not involve you, you cannot lawfully record it without at least one party's consent.

Facial recognition adds risk. Wyoming has no 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.

Note the per-day civil damages. Wyoming's civil damages provision at Wyo. Stat. 7-3-710(a) accrues at least $1,000 per day for each day of violation. Unlike a single statutory damages amount, ongoing or repeated non-participant recording exposure multiplies the civil risk significantly.

Driving. Wyoming's distracted driving statute (Wyo. Stat. 31-5-237) prohibits using a handheld wireless device to write, send, or read a text-based communication while driving. It exempts dialing or selecting a number to make or receive a call, and voice-operated or hands-free use. Smart glasses are not handheld, and no Wyoming statute as of June 2026 specifically addresses wearable display devices while driving. Navigation use through smart glasses is likely analogous to a mounted GPS device. Using smart glasses for live streaming, social media interaction, or video calls while driving raises the same distracted-driving exposure as any electronic device use and remains legally unsettled under current Wyoming law.

More Wyoming Laws

• Wyoming Data Privacy Laws
• Wyoming Deepfake Laws
• Wyoming Drone Laws
• Wyoming Recording Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Wyoming is a one-party consent state. Under Wyo. Stat. 7-3-702(b)(iv), 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 Wyoming without telling the other person?

Yes, if you are a genuine participant in the conversation. Wyoming'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, and that the recording is not made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.

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

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 without consent is a felony under Wyo. Stat. 6-4-304(b), carrying up to 5 years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. The Wyoming Supreme Court in Kobielusz v. State (2024) held that capturing the image itself satisfies the offense.

What are the penalties for illegal recording in Wyoming?

Unlawful interception of a private conversation by a non-participant is a felony carrying up to 5 years imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Civil damages under Wyo. Stat. 7-3-710(a) accrue at not less than $1,000 per day of violation, plus punitive damages and attorney fees. Camera voyeurism under Wyo. Stat. 6-4-304(b) is a separate felony with up to 5 years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine, enhanced to 10 years when an adult records a minor.

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

No. Wyoming has no dedicated biometric privacy statute comparable to Illinois BIPA, Texas CUBI, or Washington RCW 19.375. Using smart glasses with facial recognition in Wyoming does not trigger a state biometric statute, though common-law privacy torts still apply. If you identify a person who resides in Illinois, Texas, or Washington using facial recognition, those states' biometric laws may apply.

Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal in Wyoming?

Yes, the device is legal to own and wear in Wyoming. 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 Wyoming?

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, Wyoming'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.

What is Wyoming's civil damages rule for illegal recording?

Under Wyo. Stat. 7-3-710(a), a person aggrieved by unlawful interception may recover actual damages, but not less than $1,000 per day for each day of violation, plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees. The per-day accrual means repeated or ongoing non-participant recording generates civil exposure that grows quickly, distinct from a one-time statutory damages amount.

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

Covering the LED is not itself a Wyoming 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 it never became law; Wyoming has no equivalent bill.