Colorado
Colorado Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent and Interstate Rules
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Colorado is a one-party consent state for phone call recording under C.R.S. 18-9-303, which prohibits interception only by someone who is not a sender or intended receiver. Any participant in a call may legally record it without notifying the other parties.
Quick Answer
You can record your own phone calls in Colorado without telling the other person. Under C.R.S. 18-9-303, Colorado prohibits wiretapping by "any person not a sender or intended receiver" of a telephone or electronic communication. Because you are the sender or receiver of your own calls, you can legally record them.
This page covers Colorado phone call recording rules in detail, including interstate complications, business recording practices, VoIP and conference call considerations, and the penalties for illegal interception.
Colorado Phone Call Recording Law Explained
The Core Statute: C.R.S. 18-9-303
Colorado's wiretapping statute, C.R.S. 18-9-303, makes it a crime for anyone who is not a "sender or intended receiver" to wiretap or eavesdrop on a telephone, telegraph, or electronic communication. The critical language establishes one-party consent: if you are a sender or intended receiver, the statute does not apply to you.
This means:
- You can record any call you make or receive
- You do not need to tell the other person you are recording
- You do not need a beep tone or announcement
- Your consent as a party to the call is the only consent required
What Counts as a "Telephone Communication"
The statute covers "telephone, telegraph, or electronic communication," which Colorado courts have interpreted broadly. This includes:
- Traditional landline phone calls
- Cellular phone calls
- VoIP calls (Voice over Internet Protocol)
- Video calls with audio components
- Conference calls and group calls
- Calls through messaging apps with voice features
The technology used to carry the call does not change the legal analysis. Whether you are on a copper landline or a 5G video call, the same one-party consent rule applies.
Cordless Telephones
C.R.S. 18-9-303 does not include a separate provision for cordless telephones. Wiretapping a cordless telephone falls under the statute's general definition of a "telephone... communication" and carries the same Class 2 misdemeanor classification as wiretapping any other phone call.
SB 21-271 (effective March 1, 2022) reduced cordless-phone wiretapping from a Class 1 to a Class 2 misdemeanor. All other wiretapping was a Class 6 felony until HB 23-1293 made it a Class 2 misdemeanor for offenses on or after October 1, 2023, and the statute now sets one Class 2 misdemeanor penalty for every kind of phone.
Recording Your Own Phone Calls
Personal Calls
As a participant in the call, you have full legal authority to record personal phone calls in Colorado. Common reasons people record personal calls include:
- Preserving evidence of threats or harassment
- Documenting verbal agreements
- Keeping a record of important conversations with family members during disputes
- Recording calls with insurance companies, banks, or service providers
- Capturing information during complex discussions for later review
You can use any method to record: a smartphone app, a dedicated call recorder, a computer-based recording tool, or even holding the phone on speaker while a separate device records.
Recording Calls with Government Agencies
You can record your phone calls with government agencies in Colorado, including:
- Calls with state and local government offices
- Interactions with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment
- Calls with the Colorado Division of Insurance
- Conversations with court clerks, social workers, or case managers
- Calls with law enforcement
Government employees on the other end of the call do not need to consent because your participation in the call provides the required one-party consent.
Interstate Phone Call Recording
The Problem with Cross-State Calls
Colorado's one-party consent law only governs recording within Colorado's jurisdiction. When you call someone in another state, the question of which state's law applies becomes more complicated. Most legal authorities advise following the stricter state's recording consent law.
If you are in Colorado calling someone in a two-party consent state, the other state may require all parties to consent before the call can be legally recorded. Violating that state's law could expose you to criminal or civil liability in that jurisdiction.
Two-Party Consent States to Watch
The following states require all-party consent for phone call recording:
| State | Statute | Consent Required |
|---|---|---|
| California | Cal. Penal Code 631-632.7 | All-party |
| Connecticut | C.G.S. 52-570d (civil only) | Criminally one-party (C.G.S. 53a-187/53a-189); civil liability requires all-party consent |
| Delaware | 11 Del. C. 1335(a)(4) and 2402(c)(4) | Conflicting statutes; get everyone's consent to be safe |
| Florida | Fla. Stat. 934.03 | All-party |
| Illinois | 720 ILCS 5/14-2 | All-party |
| Maryland | Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402 | All-party |
| Massachusetts | M.G.L. c.272, 99 | All-party |
| Montana | MCA 45-8-213 | All-party |
| Nevada | NRS 200.620 (Lane v. Allstate, 1998) | All-party for phone calls; in-person is one-party |
| New Hampshire | RSA 570-A:2 | All-party |
| Pennsylvania | 18 Pa.C.S. 5703 | All-party |
| Washington | RCW 9.73.030 | All-party |
Oregon is one-party for phone calls but requires that everyone be informed before recording in-person and video-conference conversations (ORS 165.540).
Best Practice for Interstate Calls
If you regularly make calls to people in other states and want to record, the safest approach is to:
- Inform the other party that the call is being recorded
- Get verbal acknowledgment before proceeding
- Note at the start of the recording that you disclosed the recording
- If the other party objects, stop recording or end the call
This approach keeps you compliant with the strictest possible state law and eliminates interstate jurisdiction questions.
Federal Law: 18 U.S.C. 2511
Federal wiretapping law under 18 U.S.C. 2511 follows a one-party consent standard. A recording that satisfies federal law may still violate a stricter state law. Federal law provides a floor, not a ceiling, for recording consent requirements.
Business Phone Call Recording in Colorado
Legal Framework for Businesses
Colorado businesses can record phone calls under the same one-party consent framework that applies to individuals. If a company employee participates in the call, that employee's consent satisfies C.R.S. 18-9-303. No additional consent from the customer or caller is legally required under Colorado law.
However, most businesses choose to provide notice for several practical reasons:
- Many callers may be in two-party consent states
- Notice builds customer trust and transparency
- Industry regulations may require recording disclosure
- Notice reduces the risk of litigation from callers in stricter jurisdictions
Common Business Recording Practices
Colorado businesses typically use one of these notification methods:
Pre-call announcement: "This call may be recorded for quality assurance and training purposes." This is the most common method used by call centers and customer service departments.
Verbal disclosure: The agent informs the caller at the start of the conversation that the call is being recorded.
Periodic beep tone: A recurring tone during the call that indicates recording is in progress. This method is less common today but still used by some organizations.
Written notice: For ongoing business relationships, the terms of service or contract may include a clause authorizing call recording.
Industry-Specific Requirements
Certain industries face additional recording obligations beyond Colorado's general consent law:
- Financial services: The SEC, FINRA, and CFTC require broker-dealers and investment advisors to record certain communications. SEC Rule 17a-4 mandates retention of business communications.
- Healthcare: While Colorado law permits one-party consent recording, healthcare organizations must also consider HIPAA privacy rules when recording calls that involve protected health information.
- Insurance: The Colorado Division of Insurance may require recorded documentation of certain policyholder communications.
VoIP and Conference Call Recording
VoIP Platforms
VoIP platforms like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Webex, and similar services fall under C.R.S. 18-9-303 as "electronic communications." Your right to record as a participant applies to these platforms just as it does to traditional phone calls.
Many VoIP platforms have built-in recording features that notify all participants when recording starts. These platform-level notifications go beyond what Colorado law requires but may be required by the platform's terms of service.
Key considerations for VoIP recording:
- Platform terms of service may impose their own recording rules
- Built-in recording features often display visible indicators to all participants
- Third-party recording software that operates silently is still legal under Colorado law if you are a participant
- Cloud-stored recordings may be subject to the platform's data retention and privacy policies
Conference Calls and Group Calls
You can record conference calls in Colorado as long as you are an active participant. Your consent as one party satisfies the one-party consent requirement regardless of how many other people are on the call.
However, conference calls introduce interstate complications:
- Participants may be joining from two-party consent states
- The more participants on the call, the greater the chance someone is in a jurisdiction requiring all-party consent
- For multi-state conference calls, providing notice to all participants is the safest practice
Phone Call Recording and Evidence
Using Recorded Calls in Colorado Courts
Phone call recordings made under one-party consent are generally admissible as evidence in Colorado courts. The party introducing the recording must:
- Authenticate the recording under Colorado Rules of Evidence Rule 901
- Demonstrate relevance to the matter at hand
- Show the recording was not illegally obtained
Common Legal Uses for Phone Recordings
Recorded phone calls frequently serve as evidence in:
- Harassment and stalking cases (documenting threatening calls)
- Contract disputes (proving verbal agreements or modifications)
- Employment cases (recording conversations about workplace conditions)
- Family law matters (documenting co-parent communications)
- Consumer protection cases (recording deceptive sales practices)
- Insurance disputes (preserving claim-related conversations)
Recordings from Other States
A recording made legally in another one-party consent state is generally admissible in Colorado courts. However, a recording made in violation of another state's two-party consent law may face challenges even in a Colorado courtroom, as the court may consider the legality of the recording under the laws of the state where it was made.
Penalties for Illegal Phone Call Recording
Criminal Penalties
| Offense | Classification | Prison/Jail | Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wiretapping a phone call | Class 2 misdemeanor | Up to 120 days | Up to $750 |
| Cordless phone interception | Class 2 misdemeanor | Up to 120 days | Up to $750 |
| Disclosing illegally intercepted calls | Class 2 misdemeanor | Up to 120 days | Up to $750 |
Civil Liability
Victims of illegal phone call recording may pursue:
- Statutory damages under 18 U.S.C. 2520 (federal wiretap statute)
- Actual damages for harm caused by the illegal recording
- Punitive damages in egregious cases
- Attorney fees and court costs
- Injunctive relief to prevent further recording
What Is NOT Illegal
Some common activities that people worry about are actually legal in Colorado:
- Recording your own phone calls without telling the other person
- Using a call recording app on your own phone
- Recording calls with businesses, government agencies, or customer service representatives
- Keeping recordings indefinitely (there is no mandatory deletion timeline for personal recordings)
- Sharing a legally made recording with your attorney, law enforcement, or in court proceedings
Phone Call Recording Apps and Tools
Legal Status of Recording Apps
Phone call recording apps are legal to use in Colorado as long as you are a participant in the recorded call. The app itself is just a tool; legality depends on how you use it, not the technology itself.
Popular recording methods include:
- Built-in phone recording features (available on some Android devices)
- Third-party recording apps
- VoIP platform built-in recording
- External recording devices used with speakerphone
- Computer-based recording software for VoIP calls
Privacy Considerations for Stored Recordings
Once you have recorded a phone call, consider how you store and manage the recording:
- Keep recordings in a secure location, especially if they contain sensitive information
- Be aware that cloud-stored recordings may be accessible to the storage provider
- Recordings containing financial, medical, or other sensitive data should be encrypted
- If recordings are subpoenaed in legal proceedings, you must produce them
More Colorado Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
Back to Colorado Recording Laws
More Colorado Recording Topics
More Colorado Laws
- Colorado AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Colorado Dashcam Laws
- Colorado Data Privacy Laws
- Colorado Deepfake Laws
- Colorado Employee Monitoring Laws
- Colorado GPS Tracking Laws
- Colorado Police Bodycam Laws
- Colorado Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in Colorado without telling the other person?
Yes. Colorado is a one-party consent state under C.R.S. 18-9-303. As a participant in the call, your own consent is sufficient. You do not need to inform the other party that you are recording.
What happens if I record a call with someone in California from Colorado?
California requires all parties' consent for calls involving a cell or cordless phone. Courts do not agree on whose law governs a Colorado-to-California call, and a California caller could sue under California law, so the safest approach is to tell everyone on the call before recording.
Can my employer record my work phone calls in Colorado?
Yes, if the employer or an authorized representative is a party to the call. One-party consent under C.R.S. 18-9-303 applies to business calls just as it does to personal calls. Many employers also provide notice through pre-call announcements as a best practice.
Is it legal to use a call recording app in Colorado?
Yes. Call recording apps are legal to use in Colorado as long as you are a participant in the recorded call. The app is just a tool; the legality depends on whether you have one-party consent, not on the recording method.
Can I record a Zoom or Teams call in Colorado?
Yes. VoIP calls through Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, and similar platforms are electronic communications covered by C.R.S. 18-9-303. As a participant, you can record under one-party consent. Note that some platforms notify all participants when built-in recording starts.
Updates
We added Nevada and Delaware to the table of all-party consent states with an Oregon note, recast the interstate-call rule as advice since courts disagree on which state's law applies, and corrected when non-cordless wiretapping became a misdemeanor (October 2023).
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the Connecticut row in the interstate-call comparison table: Connecticut's criminal wiretapping law is one-party consent, and the all-party requirement is a separate civil statute (C.G.S. 52-570d), not the definitions section previously cited (C.G.S. 53a-187).
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the wiretapping penalty under C.R.S. 18-9-303 (a Class 2 misdemeanor, not a Class 6 felony, in the KeyTakeaways and penalties table) and removed an inaccurate claim that C.R.S. 16-3-311's peace-officer recording right extends to phone calls (its text covers only in-person incidents).
Completed the C.R.S. 18-9-303 correction: the 'Cordless Telephone Exception' section no longer frames cordless-phone wiretapping as a lesser penalty or exception to a felony-level norm, since general wiretapping under the statute is itself a Class 2 misdemeanor, matching the KeyTakeaways bullet already corrected on the page.
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.
Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 18: Criminal Code
§ 18-9-303Wiretapping prohibited - penaltyIn forcecited in 18 of our articles
(1) Any person not a sender or intended receiver of a telephone or telegraph communication commits wiretapping if he: (a) Knowingly overhears, reads, takes, copies, or records a telephone, telegraph, or electronic communication without the consent of either a sender or a receiver thereof or attempts to do so; or (b) Intentionally overhears, reads, takes, copies, or records a telephone, telegraph, or electronic communication for the purpose of committing or aiding or abetting the commission of an unlawful act; or (c) Knowingly uses for any purpose or discloses to any person the contents of any such communication, or attempts to do so, while knowing or having reason to know the information was obtained in violation of this section; or (d) Knowingly taps or makes any connection with any telephone or telegraph line, wire, cable, or instrument belonging to another or with any electronic, mechanical, or other device belonging to another or installs any device whether connected or not which permits the interception of messages; or (e) Repealed.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2001
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514)“…5-60-120 (1997); Cal. Penal Code Ann. §631 (West 1999); Colo. Rev. Stat. §18-9-303 (2000); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, § 133…”
- Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A. (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1999, 191 F.3d 463)“…oncert with them); Cal.Penal Code §§ 631, 632 (West 1999); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303 (1986 & Supp.1995); Conn. Gen. Stat. §…”
- Sequa Corp. v. Lititech, Inc. (District Court, D. Colorado 1992, 807 F. Supp. 653)“…Menaman. Defendants rely on Colorado’s wiretapping statute, C.R.S. § 18-9-303, which provides in relevant part:…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Colorado Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2026, Colorado Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Colorado Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
§ 18-9-305ExceptionsIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1) Nothing in sections 18-9-302 to 18-9-304 shall be interpreted to prevent a news agency, or an employee thereof, from using the accepted tools and equipment of that news medium in the course of reporting or investigating a public and newsworthy event; nor shall said sections prevent any person from using wiretapping or eavesdropping devices on his own premises for security or business purposes if reasonable notice of the use of such devices is given to the public. (2) No part of sections 18-9-302 to 18-9-304 shall apply to the normal use of services, facilities, and equipment provided by a provider of wire or electronic communication service pursuant to its tariffs on file with the public utilities commission of the state of Colorado and with the federal communications commission; and said sections shall not apply to the normal functions of any operator of a switchboard nor to any officer, agent, or employee of a provider of wire or electronic communication service or other person engaged in the business of providing service, equipment, and facilities for communication who performs an otherwise prohibited act if such act is necessary to provide the communication services,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Also relied on in: Colorado Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 16: Criminal Proceedings
§ 16-3-311Peace officer incident recordingsIn forcecited in 8 of our articles
(1) A person has the right to lawfully record any incident involving a peace officer and to maintain custody and control of that recording and the device used to record the recording. A peace officer shall not seize a recording or recording device without consent, without a search warrant or subpoena, or without a lawful exception to the warrant requirement. (2) (a) If a peace officer seeks to obtain from a person a device used to record an incident involving a peace officer in order to access the recording as possible evidence in an investigation, the officer shall first: (I) Advise the person of his or her name, his or her badge number or other identifying number, and the name of the law enforcement agency; (II) Identify the legal reason for which the information is requested; and (III) If practicable under the circumstances, inquire whether the person will voluntarily provide the officer with a copy of the specific recording that is relevant to the investigation either by voluntarily providing the device to the officer or immediately electronically transferring the information to the officer or the law enforcement agency so that the person may retain possession of his or…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Also relied on in: Colorado Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use, Colorado Laws on Recording Police: Rights, Protections, and Body Cameras, Colorado Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Exceptions
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 52 (Civil Actions), Chapter 925
§ 52-570dAction for illegal recording of private telephonic communications.In forcecited in 56 of our articles
(a) No person shall use any instrument, device or equipment to record an oral private telephonic communication unless the use of such instrument, device or equipment (1) is preceded by consent of all parties to the communication and such prior consent either is obtained in writing or is part of, and obtained at the start of, the recording, or (2) is preceded by verbal notification which is recorded at the beginning and is part of the communication by the recording party, or (3) is accompanied by an automatic tone warning device which automatically produces a distinct signal that is repeated at intervals of approximately fifteen seconds during the communication while such instrument, device or equipment is in use.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 22 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp. (1998) held section 52-570d creates a cause of action unknown at common law that is strictly construed, and does not reach a third party's rerecording of an already illegal tape. Jezouit v. Malloy (2019) held the statute does not waive the state's sovereign immunity from suit.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp. (Connecticut Appellate Court 1998, 47 Conn. App. 764)✓A girlfriend secretly taped a radio employee's call, and a coworker re-recorded that tape and used it to get him fired. The court held section 52-570d, strictly construed, bars taping a private call but not a third party's re-recording of an already illegal tape.
- Jezouit v. Malloy (Connecticut Appellate Court 2019, 193 Conn. App. 576)“…his complaint because (1) he brought his claim pursuant to General Statutes § 52-570d, which he contends waives sovereign imm…”
- State v. Skok (Supreme Court of Connecticut 2015)“…on without the consent of all parties to the communication. General Statutes § 52-570d (a) prohibits the use of ‘‘any instrume…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?, Can You Record ICE Agents? Know Your Rights by State (2026)
Connecticut General Statutes, Title 53a (Penal Code), Chapter 952
§ 53a-187Definitions. Applicability.In forcecited in 22 of our articles
(a) The following definitions are applicable to sections 53a-188 and 53a-189: (1) “Wiretapping” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a telephonic or telegraphic communication or a communication made by cellular radio telephone by a person other than a sender or receiver thereof, without the consent of either the sender or receiver, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. The normal operation of a telephone or telegraph corporation and the normal use of the services and facilities furnished by such corporation pursuant to its tariffs shall not be deemed “wiretapping”. (2) “Mechanical overhearing of a conversation” means the intentional overhearing or recording of a conversation or discussion, without the consent of at least one party thereto, by a person not present thereat, by means of any instrument, device or equipment. (3) “Unlawfully” means not specifically authorized by law. For purposes of this section, “cellular radio telephone” means a wireless telephone authorized by the Federal Communications Commission to operate in the frequency bandwidth reserved for cellular radio telephones.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at cga.ct.gov
Cited in 12 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Connecticut courts read section 53a-187's definitions to reach only surreptitious, nonconsensual monitoring. State v. Grullon (1989) applied it to place one-party-consent recordings outside the eavesdropping statutes, and Washington v. Meachum (1996) held those statutes are violated only when neither party knows the call is monitored.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Grullon (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1989, 212 Conn. 195)✓Police recorded the defendant's calls with his brother, who consented; the court held that replacing the older wiretap penal statute with section 53a-187, which reaches recording only when no party consents, gave no reason to exclude the transcripts.
- Washington v. Meachum (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1996, 238 Conn. 692)✓Inmates challenged prison rules allowing nonprivileged collect calls to be monitored after posted signs, signed forms and a recurring tone; reading section 53a-187's consent-based definitions, the court held the eavesdropping statutes are violated only when neither party knows.
- State v. McVeigh (Supreme Court of Connecticut 1993, 224 Conn. 593)✓Police used a scanner in a neighbor's apartment to record a couple's cordless phone calls; the court rejected the State's argument that a 1989 amendment adding cellular phones to section 53a-187's wiretapping definition left cordless calls unprotected, and ordered suppression.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026), Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent for Phone Calls
Florida Statutes
§ 934.03Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited.In forcecited in 53 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who:(a) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (b) 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:1. Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or 2.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at leg.state.fl.us
Cited in 74 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Walls (1978) held that recording an in-home oral communication without the consent of all parties violated section 934.03 and required suppression, and State v. Inciarrano (1985) held the statute protects only communications uttered with a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Walls (Supreme Court of Florida 1978, 356 So. 2d 294)✓An extortion victim secretly recorded threats made to him in his own home; the court held that was a protected oral communication, that recording it without every party's consent violated Section 934.03, and that Section 934.06 barred using the tape as evidence.
- SHARRON TASHA FORD v. CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH (District Court of Appeal of Florida 2021)“…ng oral communications in violation of the wiretap statute, section 934.03, Florida Statutes (2009), and for obstructing without vio…”
- State v. Calhoun (Circuit Court for the Judicial Circuits of Florida 1984, 7 Fla. Supp. 2d 3)“…hall not be violated” . . . (emphasis mine) Furthermore, section 934.03, Florida Statutes, makes it unlawful for *6 any person (…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026), Florida Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Florida Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
Illinois Compiled Statutes Chapter 720, Act 5 (Criminal Code of 2012)
§ 14-2Elements of the offense; affirmative defenseIn forcecited in 63 of our articles
(a) A person commits eavesdropping when he or she knowingly and intentionally: (1) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of overhearing, transmitting, or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all of the parties to the private conversation; (2) Uses an eavesdropping device, in a surreptitious manner, for the purpose of transmitting or recording all or any part of any private conversation to which he or she is a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all other parties to the private conversation; (3) Intercepts, records, or transcribes, in a surreptitious manner, any private electronic communication to which he or she is not a party unless he or she does so with the consent of all parties to the private electronic communication; (4) Manufactures, assembles, distributes, or possesses any electronic, mechanical, eavesdropping, or other device knowing that or having reason to know that the design of the device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious overhearing, transmitting, or recording of private conversations or the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at ilga.gov
Cited in 92 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Melongo (Illinois Supreme Court 2014, 2014 IL 114852)“…ations of section 14-2 of the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/14-2 (West 2008)), which defines the offense…”
- People v. Smith (Appellate Court of Illinois 2025, 2025 IL App (1st) 220116)“…ropping violated section 14-2 of the Criminal Code of 2012 (720 ILCS 5/14-2 (West 2014)) and that then State’s Att…”
- Cook Au Vin, LLC v. Mid-Century Insurance Co. (Appellate Court of Illinois 2023, 226 N.E.3d 694)“…onversation by one who is not a party to the conversation. 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(1) (West 2020). In enacting the stat…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Illinois Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Illinois Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026), Illinois Dashcam Laws: Audio Rules, Placement, and Legal Use (2026)
Montana Code Annotated, Title 45
§ 45-8-213Privacy In CommunicationsIn forcecited in 51 of our articles
45-8-213. Privacy in communications. (1) Except as provided in 69-6-104, a person commits the offense of violating privacy in communications if the person knowingly or purposely: (a) with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, or injure, communicates with a person by electronic communication and threatens to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of the person or makes repeated use of obscene, lewd, or profane language or repeated lewd or lascivious suggestions; (b) uses an electronic communication to attempt to extort money or any other thing of value from a person or to disturb by repeated communications the peace, quiet, or right of privacy of a person at the place where the communications are received; (c) records or causes to be recorded a conversation by use of a hidden electronic or mechanical device that reproduces a human conversation without the knowledge of all parties to the conversation; (d) with the purpose to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, or injure or to obtain money or other valuable consideration, publishes, distributes, or discloses real or digitally fabricated printed or electronic photographs, pictures, images, or…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at mca.legmt.gov
Cited in 23 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Dugan (2013) struck the statute's prima facie intent clause as overbroad. State v. Brown (1988) noted the statute still bars recording without all participants' permission and rejected an overbreadth attack on its public-official exception. State v. DuBray (2003) found no violation where the defendant knew of the recording.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Smith (Montana Supreme Court 2004, 322 Mont. 206)✓A man who phoned threats to kill his estranged wife's boyfriend argued he should have been charged under section 45-8-213(1)(a) instead of assault with a weapon. The court held the two statutes punish different conduct, so the charge was within prosecutorial discretion.
- State v. Dugan (Montana Supreme Court 2013, 369 Mont. 39)“…rbroad, the Court today strikes the prima facie language in § 45-8-213, MCA. However, a narrow application would be…”
- In re C.S. (Montana Supreme Court 1984, 210 Mont. 144)“…n of privacy in communication, a misdemeanor as provided in Section 45-8-213, MCA. The facts underlying the offense were…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Massachusetts Phone Call Recording Laws, Montana Recording Laws (2026): Announcement Exception and Penalties, Montana Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE LVIII PUBLIC JUSTICE, CHAPTER 570-A WIRETAPPING AND EAVESDROPPING
§ 570-A:2Interception and Disclosure of Telecommunication or Oral Communications Prohibited.In forcecited in 34 of our articles
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person: (a) Wilfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any telecommunication or oral communication; (b) Wilfully 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: (1) Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in telecommunication, or (2) Such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication, or (3) Such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on premises of any business or other commercial establishment, or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment; or (c) Wilfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 35 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):New Hampshire courts read the felony offense in RSA 570-A:2, I as requiring more than intent to record. Fischer v. Hooper (1999) held wilfully means intentional or reckless disregard for the lawfulness of the conduct, so a good faith belief is a defense. State of New Hampshire v. Adam Mueller (2014) reversed on that mens rea.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Kilgus (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1986, 128 N.H. 577)✓A murder-for-hire middleman agreed to wear a hidden recorder and got the defendant to confirm paying $1,000 to have a man killed; the court held the taping was lawful under RSA 570-A:2, II(d) because one party consented and homicide is an enumerated offense.
- Fischer v. Hooper (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1999, 143 N.H. 585)✓A father secretly taped his ex-wife's calls with their daughter though a guardian ad litem had said both parents must agree; the court held wilfully in RSA 570-A:2, I requires intentional or reckless disregard for the lawfulness of the conduct, and reversed for a new trial.
- State of New Hampshire v. Adam Mueller (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2014, 166 N.H. 65)✓A police-accountability activist recorded three phone calls with a police captain and two school officials without telling them; the court held that instructing the jury on purposely rather than the statute's wilfully was plain error and reversed his wiretapping convictions.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: ACLU Sues Concord NH Housing Authority Over In-Unit Sensors, New Hampshire Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, New Hampshire Audio Recording Laws
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Title 18 (Crimes and Offenses)
§ 5703Interception, disclosure or use of wire, electronic or oral communicationsIn forcecited in 59 of our articles
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a person is guilty of a felony of the third degree if he: (1) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic or oral communication; (2) intentionally discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication; or (3) intentionally uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, knowing or having reason to know, that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, electronic or oral communication.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at palegis.us
Cited in 121 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Commonwealth v. Brachbill (1989) held Section 5703(1) is not limited to interceptions made with an intercepting device, so an officer who listened on a telephone extension without the prior approval Section 5704(2)(ii) requires violated the section, and the testimony had to be suppressed.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Commonwealth v. Schaeffer (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1987, 370 Pa. Super. 179)“…and other electronic interceptions of communications, see 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, carved out limited exceptions to these…”
- Commonwealth v. Bennett (Superior Court of Pennsylvania 1976, 245 Pa. Super. 457)“…ode, Act of Dec. 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1 et seq. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5703, as amended Dec. 27, 1974, P.L. 1007, N…”
- Commonwealth v. Brachbill (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1989, 520 Pa. 533)✓A state trooper listened on an extension phone to a call between a former inmate and a guard charged with abusing him; the court held section 5703 bars any willful interception, not only one using an intercepting device, so the trooper's testimony should have been suppressed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Oregon Phone Call Recording Laws: Split Consent Rules and Penalties, Pennsylvania Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Pennsylvania Audio Recording Laws: All-Party Consent Rules and Felony Penalties (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's AI Deepfake Law (SSB 5886) Takes Effect June 11, Washington Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, Washington Audio Recording Laws: Two-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 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: Can I Record My Boss Harassing Me? State-by-State Legal Guide (2026), How to Detect and Block Listening Devices in Your Home (2026), How to Record a Phone Call on Android or iOS Without an App (2026)
§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 130 of our articles
Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 860 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walker v. Darby (1990) held a 2520 plaintiff need not prove the contents of intercepted conversations, only interception and a justified expectation against it. Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) barred 2520 damages against defendants who took no part in the interception, obtained the tape lawfully, and disclosed a matter of public concern.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573)✓A postal letter carrier said three supervisors wired an intercom near his workstation to listen in. Reversing summary judgment, the Eleventh Circuit held a section 2520 plaintiff can show interception without proving the contents of specific conversations.
- Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41)“…disclosure, or use is entitled to recover civil damages, 18 U. S. C. § 2520 . Title III also bars the use as eviden…”
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)“…7 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(4), or alternatively, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (a), or alternatively, for violations o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Otter.ai Faces Consolidated Wiretap Class Action Over Its AI Meeting Notetaker and All-Party Consent, Otter.ai Lawsuit: Judge Lets Core Privacy Claims Proceed (2026), Supreme Court Tosses Conviction Over a Secretly Recorded FaceTime Call (2026)
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 18: Criminal Code § 18-1.3-101 (Pretrial diversion - appropriation - repeal)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Sources and References
- C.R.S. 18-9-303 - Wiretapping Prohibited(law.justia.com)
- C.R.S. 18-9-305 - Exceptions(law.justia.com)
- SB 21-271 - Misdemeanor Reform(leg.colorado.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Federal Wiretapping(law.cornell.edu)
- Colorado Department of Labor and Employment(cdle.colorado.gov).gov
- Colorado Division of Insurance(doi.colorado.gov).gov
- Colorado Title 18 Criminal Code(content.leg.colorado.gov).gov
- C.R.S. 16-3-311 - Peace Officer Incident Recordings(law.justia.com)
- HB 23-1293 (Felony Sentencing Commission Recommendations; 18-9-303 wiretapping reduced to class 2 misdemeanor, eff. Oct. 1, 2023)(leg.colorado.gov).gov