Utah
Utah Audio Recording Laws
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. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Utah is a one-party consent state for audio recording under Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4. Any participant in a phone call or in-person conversation can legally record it without notifying the other parties. Illegal interception by a non-participant is a third degree felony carrying up to five years in prison.
Utah is a one-party consent state for audio recording. Under the Utah Interception of Communications Act (Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4), you can legally record any phone call, in-person conversation, or electronic communication you participate in without notifying or getting permission from other participants.
How Utah's One-Party Consent Law Works
The Statutory Framework
Utah's audio recording rules are found in the Utah Interception of Communications Act (Utah Code Ann. Title 77, Chapter 23a). The key statutes are:

- Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4 establishes the criminal offense of intercepting wire, electronic, or oral communications without authorization, and also provides the one-party consent exception.
- Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-11 creates a civil cause of action for victims of illegal interception.
- Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-3 defines key terms including wire, electronic, and oral communications.
Under 77-23a-4, it is unlawful to intentionally or knowingly intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication. However, recording is lawful when at least one party to the communication consents. That consenting party can be you.
These statutes were reviewed during Utah's 2025 criminal code recodification. The core wiretapping provisions in Chapter 23a remained substantively unchanged.
What "One-Party Consent" Means in Practice
One-party consent means exactly one person involved in the communication, typically you, must know about and agree to the recording. You do not need to announce that a call or conversation is being recorded, and you do not need anyone else's verbal or written agreement. You can also give someone else prior consent to record a conversation or meeting on your behalf, even if you are not the one operating the recorder. The specific rules for phone calls and in-person conversations are covered below.
Types of Audio Communications Covered

Wire Communications
Wire communications include telephone calls, cell phone calls, and any communication transmitted over a wire at some point. Utah's one-party consent rule covers all wire communications.
Oral Communications
Oral communications are in-person conversations where one or more parties have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Public conversations at normal volume generally carry no privacy expectation and may be recorded freely.
Recording Phone Calls in Utah

Personal Phone Calls
You can record any personal phone call you participate in. This applies to cell phones, landlines, VoIP calls (Zoom, Teams, Meet), video call audio, and messaging apps. No announcement or permission is required.
Business Phone Calls
Utah businesses can record calls for quality assurance, training, compliance, and dispute resolution. An employee on the call provides the necessary one-party consent. Many businesses announce recording as a best practice, particularly for interstate calls.
No federal regulation requires a business to announce call recording: the FCC removed its beep-tone rule in 2017, and the federal Wiretap Act's one-party rule (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)) applies. Telemarketing and robocalls are separately regulated under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Interstate Phone Calls
When you call someone in a two-party consent state, that state may apply its own law to the call, and courts disagree about which state's law governs. In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006), the California Supreme Court applied California law, going forward only, to a Georgia company that recorded calls with California clients, and applied Georgia law to damages for past calls, while the Nevada Supreme Court held that Nevada's statute does not reach a call recorded outside Nevada (Ditech Financial v. Buckles, 2017).
Thirteen states require the consent of every party: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Several of these are partial: Connecticut (phone calls, civil rule) and Nevada (phone calls) require every party's consent only for calls, Oregon only for in-person conversations and video calls, and Delaware has two conflicting statutes.
The safest approach for interstate calls: announce the recording or get consent. Our recording consent checker lets you check the other state's rule before you decide.
Recording In-Person Conversations

When Audio Recording Is Legal
You can record in-person conversations in Utah when:
- You are a direct participant
- You are in a public place where no reasonable privacy expectation exists
- One party has given you prior consent to record
When Audio Recording Is Illegal
Recording becomes illegal when:
- You are not a party and have no participant's consent
- You plant a hidden device to record a conversation you are absent from, and no participant has given prior consent
- You record a conversation in order to commit a crime or a tort
Recording in Your Own Home
You can record conversations in your own home if participating. You cannot plant recorders to capture guests' private conversations when you are not present, unless one of them has given prior consent, or record in areas where guests have privacy expectations (bathrooms, guest bedrooms).
Penalties for Illegal Audio Recording in Utah
Criminal Penalties
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Illegal interception (standard) | Third degree felony | 5 years prison, $5,000 fine |
| First offense (non-tortious/non-commercial, unencrypted radio, not cellular/PLMR/paging) | Class A misdemeanor | Set by Utah's general misdemeanor sentencing law |
| First offense (non-tortious/non-commercial, cellular, public land mobile radio, or paging radio portion) | Class B misdemeanor | 6 months jail |
| Disclosing illegally obtained communications | Third degree felony | 5 years prison, $5,000 fine |
Civil Liability
Under Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-11, the court may award victims whichever is greater: (a) actual damages plus any profits the violator made, or (b) statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or $10,000. On top of that amount, victims can also recover:
- Punitive damages in appropriate cases
- Attorney fees and litigation costs
- Injunctive relief
The statute of limitations is two years from the date the victim discovers the violation.
Good Faith Defense
Utah provides a complete defense for anyone who relied in good faith on a court order, warrant, grand jury subpoena, or other statutory authorization.
Using Audio Recordings as Evidence in Utah
Recordings made lawfully under one-party consent are generally admissible in Utah courts. Courts evaluate authentication, relevance, and hearsay rules, and a court can exclude a relevant recording only if its value as evidence is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice or confusion (Utah R. Evid. 403). If you plan to use a recording as evidence, keep the original file unedited, note the date, time, and participants, and talk to an attorney before sharing it publicly.
Common Audio Recording Scenarios
Can I Record My Landlord?
Yes, if you are part of the conversation.
Can I Record My Doctor?
Yes, as a participant in the medical appointment.
Can I Record My Boss?
Yes, under one-party consent. Employer policies may restrict recording and violating them could lead to discipline.
Can I Record a Government Official?
Yes, in public settings and at open meetings. Under Utah's Open and Public Meetings Act (52-4-203), anyone attending an open meeting may record it as long as the recording does not interfere with the meeting, and public bodies must also record their own open meetings.
More Utah 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
More Utah Recording Topics
More Utah Laws
- Utah AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Utah Dashcam Laws
- Utah Data Privacy Laws
- Utah Deepfake Laws
- Utah Employee Monitoring Laws
- Utah GPS Tracking Laws
- Utah Police Bodycam Laws
- Utah Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to audio record a conversation in Utah without the other person knowing?
Yes. Utah is a one-party consent state under Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4. As long as you are a participant in the conversation, you can record the audio without telling or getting permission from other parties.
Can I record a phone call in Utah?
Yes. You can record any phone call you participate in, including landline, cell phone, and VoIP calls. For calls with someone in an all-party consent state, that state may apply its own law, and courts disagree about which law governs, so the safe course is to tell everyone and get consent before recording.
What is the penalty for illegal audio recording in Utah?
Illegal interception is a third degree felony carrying up to 5 years in prison. A narrow misdemeanor alternative under 77-23a-4(10)(b) applies only to first offenses that are non-tortious, non-commercial, and involve an unencrypted radio communication: a Class A misdemeanor generally, or a Class B misdemeanor if the communication is the radio portion of a cellular, public land mobile radio, or paging service call. In a civil suit, the court may award the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits or $100 a day or $10,000, plus attorney fees and punitive damages in appropriate cases.
Can I sue someone for recording me without consent in Utah?
Only if the recording was made illegally. Under Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-11, the court may award victims of unlawful interception whichever is greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits, or statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, plus attorney fees and punitive damages in appropriate cases. The statute of limitations is two years from discovery.
Can audio recordings be used as evidence in Utah courts?
Yes. Recordings made lawfully under one-party consent are generally admissible in both criminal and civil cases. The recording must be authenticated and relevant, and a court can exclude it only if its value as evidence is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice or confusion.
Updates
Clarified that Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney applied California law only going forward, and that a recorder left to capture a conversation you are absent from is lawful if a participant gave prior consent.
We corrected the civil-damages description (a court may award damages; punitive damages are available in appropriate cases), removed a nonexistent commercial-purpose limit, replaced the stricter-state rule for interstate calls with the unsettled choice-of-law picture and the full list of 13 all-party states, and fixed the evidence-exclusion standard.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Hedged the Connecticut entry in the interstate all-party-consent list to reflect that Connecticut's criminal wiretap law is one-party consent, with all-party consent required only for civil liability on phone-call recording under C.G.S. 52-570d.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the classification of Utah's narrow first-offense misdemeanor exception under 77-23a-4(10)(b): it is a Class A misdemeanor for most unencrypted radio/cordless interceptions, and Class B only for cellular, public land mobile radio, or paging radio-portion communications.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected penalty table: removed erroneous Class A misdemeanor row; 77-23a-4(10)(b) Class B misdemeanor is the only narrow first-offense alternative, limited to unencrypted radio/cordless interceptions that are non-tortious and non-commercial. Updated KeyTakeaway penalty description accordingly.
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 Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Utah Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, Utah Dashcam Laws
§ 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 Phone Call Recording Laws, Utah Workplace Recording Laws, Utah AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026)
§ 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.
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)
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), Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026), How to Detect and Block Listening Devices in Your Home (2026)
Sources and References
- Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4 -- Interception of Communications(le.utah.gov).gov
- Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-11 -- Civil Remedies for Interception Violations(le.utah.gov).gov
- Utah Interception of Communications Act -- Chapter 23a(le.utah.gov).gov
- FCC Guide on Recording Telephone Conversations(fcc.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 -- Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press -- Utah Recording Guide(rcfp.org)