Vermont Recording Laws (2026): No Wiretap Statute, One-Party Default

Vermont is technically a one-party consent state, but the label obscures what makes it unique: Vermont is the only US state without a general wiretap or eavesdropping criminal statute. The federal Wiretap Act at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) supplies the consent floor. Secretly recording inside a private home is a separate matter: the Vermont Supreme Court in State v. Geraw, 173 Vt. 350, 795 A.2d 1219 (2002), held that Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution bars warrantless secret in-home audio recording even by known, invited officers. Illegal recording also violates targeted criminal statutes and gives rise to civil liability.

Vermont recording law at a glance

For the full in-depth analysis see Vermont recording laws in depth below.

Recording in-person conversations in Vermont

Vermont has never enacted a general wiretap or eavesdropping criminal statute. A direct review of Title 13 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated confirms no chapter prohibits private interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. The Vermont Electronic Communication Privacy Act at 13 V.S.A. chapter 232 (sections 8101 to 8108) sounds relevant but is not a wiretap statute: it regulates only the process by which Vermont law enforcement may compel a service provider to produce stored electronic data. It carries no private-party criminal liability for eavesdropping.

Because the state criminal code is silent, federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) is the operative rule. A person who is a party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication may record it without notifying the other parties. The one limit: the safe harbor is forfeited when the recording is made "for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act." Recording a colleague to document harassment for HR is lawful. Recording the same colleague as part of a blackmail scheme is not.

The Geraw / Blow / Brooks trilogy from the Vermont Supreme Court builds an additional layer on top of the federal floor. State v. Blow, 157 Vt. 513, 602 A.2d 552 (1991) held that warrantless electronic participant monitoring inside a home "offends the core values of Article 11" of the Vermont Constitution. State v. Brooks, 157 Vt. 490, 601 A.2d 963 (1991), decided the same day, held the opposite for a public parking lot: conversations open to passersby carry no Article 11 privacy protection.

State v. Geraw, 173 Vt. 350, 795 A.2d 1219 (2002) is the doctrinal anchor. Two Essex Junction detectives were invited into a defendant's home and secretly tape-recorded the conversation at the kitchen table. The Vermont Supreme Court suppressed the recording under Article 11, extending Blow's covert-informant rule to identified, invited officers:

"Any Vermonter who sits around the kitchen table conversing as defendant did here has a reasonable right to expect that he or she is not being secretly monitored or recorded."

The trilogy yields a clean binary for state actors: secret recording inside a private home requires a warrant; public-place participant recording does not. These are Article 11 cases binding state actors, not private parties. But private actors who secretly record inside someone else's home face separate exposure under 13 V.S.A. 2605(d), the federal tortious-purpose carve-out, and the common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion tort.

Recording phone calls in Vermont

The one-party consent rule applies equally to phone calls. Vermont has no state-law call-recording statute, so federal ECPA governs. A Vermont caller who is a party to the call may record without notification.

The cross-border hazard is the bigger practical issue. Vermont borders Massachusetts (all-party for secret civilian recording under M.G.L. ch. 272, section 99) and New Hampshire (all-party under RSA 570-A). When any party to the call is physically in Massachusetts or New Hampshire, the safer rule is to treat the call as requiring all-party consent: notify at the start or obtain affirmative consent. New York and Quebec are both one-party jurisdictions, so Vermont-to-New York and Vermont-to-Quebec calls follow the Vermont default.

See Vermont Phone Call Recording Laws for a deeper walkthrough.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Security cameras on your own property are generally lawful in Vermont, subject to two targeted criminal statutes.

13 V.S.A. 2605(b) prohibits intentionally recording the intimate areas of another person without consent in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. "Intimate areas" covers genitals, pubic area, buttocks, and the female breast of an identifiable person.

13 V.S.A. 2605(d) is broader: it prohibits intentional surveillance or recording of any person inside his or her home or residence without knowledge and consent, regardless of whether the subject is nude. This is the closest Vermont analog to the in-home wiretap prohibition other states codify. A nanny cam pointed at common living areas of your own home does not trigger 2605(d). Planting a covert camera inside another person's home does.

The first-offense penalty for 2605(b) or (d) violations is up to 2 years and a $1,000 fine. Disclosure of images obtained in violation of 2605(b), (d), or (e) is graded more severely under 2605(c): up to 5 years and $5,000.

A camera that also records audio while no party to the conversation has consented may separately invoke the federal tortious-purpose analysis under 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d).

See Vermont Voyeurism Laws and Vermont Security Camera Laws for more detail.

Penalties for illegal recording in Vermont

Vermont has no general wiretap penalty because there is no wiretap statute. The targeted penalties on the books:

Civil remedies. Vermont has no statutory recording-interception damages formula. The available routes:

• Common-law intrusion upon seclusion. Hodgdon v. Mt. Mansfield Co., 160 Vt. 150, 624 A.2d 1122 (1992) is the workhorse. The tort requires an intentional interference with solitude or seclusion of a kind highly offensive to a reasonable person. No statutory floor or ceiling.
• 13 V.S.A. 2606(e) private cause of action. Express civil remedy for NCII (including deepfake post-Act 161), with TRO and permanent-injunction relief plus actual damages.
• Federal civil action at 18 U.S.C. 2520. Actual or statutory damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees for federal Wiretap Act violations.
• Public disclosure of private facts and appropriation. Recognized by Lemnah v. American Breeders Service, 144 Vt. 568 (1984) and Staruski v. Continental Tel. Co. of Vt., 154 Vt. 568 (1990).

The statute of limitations on Vermont privacy torts is 3 years under 12 V.S.A. 512. Vermont also has a strong anti-SLAPP statute at 12 V.S.A. 1041, providing mandatory fee-shifting where a recording-related civil claim targets constitutionally protected speech or newsgathering.

Recording the police in Vermont

Vermont sits in the Second Circuit (with Connecticut and New York), not the First. The First Circuit has issued published civilian rulings clearly establishing a First Amendment right to record on-duty police in public. The Second Circuit has not. Reyes v. City of New York (2d Cir. June 18, 2025) was a procedural certification of New York's Right-to-Record statutes to the New York Court of Appeals, not a constitutional ruling. The Second Circuit's posture on civilian recording of police remains formally unsettled.

That said, every federal circuit to have addressed the question has recognized at least an open public-place right to record on-duty police. Vermont courts presented with the question would likely follow that consensus. The practical conservative posture: record openly, maintain a reasonable distance, comply with lawful orders to move back, and do not physically interfere with police activity.

Because the right is not "clearly established" under controlling Second Circuit precedent, qualified immunity is more available to officers in Vermont than in states within the First, Third, Seventh, or Eleventh Circuits.

See Vermont Laws on Recording Police for the full analysis.

Special topics in Vermont

Workplace recording and the NLRA

Vermont has no state wiretap statute, so there is no Vermont-statutory consent rule for workplace recording. Federal ECPA one-party consent governs. An employee present in a meeting may record it. Blanket employer no-recording handbook rules are subject to Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), which makes them presumptively unlawful unless narrowly tailored. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) was a housekeeping rescission of prior General Counsel memoranda; it did not reinstate Boeing or overrule Stericycle. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) narrowly bars surreptitious recording of formal collective-bargaining sessions. The 13 V.S.A. 2605 layer still applies to workplace restrooms, lactation rooms, and similar private-zone areas. See Vermont Workplace Recording Laws.

Body-worn cameras and public records

Vermont's body-camera framework rests on two statutes. 20 V.S.A. 1819 requires Vermont State Police Field Force members who routinely engage with the public to carry a body camera, effective October 2, 2020. 20 V.S.A. 2369 requires any Vermont law-enforcement agency that authorizes body cameras to adopt and follow the Vermont Criminal Justice Council model policy, on and after January 1, 2022 (the VCJC model policy was adopted December 7, 2022). Civilian access to footage runs through the Vermont Public Records Act at 1 V.S.A. 315 to 320, with exemptions under 317(c)(5) (law-enforcement investigation records) and 317(c)(7) (unwarranted invasion of privacy).

AI deepfakes and election synthetic media

Act 161 of 2024 (H.878), signed June 6, 2024, added a "digitization" definition to 13 V.S.A. 2606, bringing AI-generated and digitally manipulated nonconsensual intimate imagery within the criminal NCII statute. Act 75 of 2026 (S.23), signed March 5, 2026, creates 17 V.S.A. chapter 35, subchapters 4 and 5, prohibiting publication of deceptive synthetic media of candidates within 90 days of a Vermont election without a clear disclosure; civil penalties range from $1,000 to $15,000 scaled by intent. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025), adds a federal criminal prohibition on knowingly publishing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions (including AI-generated) and a covered-platform 48-hour notice-and-takedown duty effective May 19, 2026, stacking on top of 13 V.S.A. 2606.

Data privacy

H.121 of 2024 (Vermont Data Privacy Act) was vetoed by Governor Phil Scott on June 13, 2024, and the Senate override failed 14 to 15 on June 17, 2024. It is not in force. Successor bills S.71, H.208, and H.211 remain pending and have not been signed into law. Vermont does have a live data-broker registration and security regime under 9 V.S.A. chapter 62, enacted as Act 171 of 2018, effective January 1, 2019.

Federal ECPA and FCC overlay

Because Vermont has no state wiretap statute, the federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. 2510 to 2522 does more work in Vermont than in states with codified two-party rules. The FCC's Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024) classifies AI-generated voices in robocalls as "artificial or prerecorded" messages under TCPA 47 U.S.C. 227, requiring prior express consent. The one-to-one consent rule (FCC Order 23-107/24-24) was vacated by the 11th Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (Jan. 24, 2025) and the FCC has removed the implementing language.

Recent legal developments

• March 5, 2026: Act 75 of 2026 (S.23) signed, creating Vermont election synthetic media disclosure regime at 17 V.S.A. chapter 35, subchapters 4 and 5.
• May 19, 2025: Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12) signed; platform takedown duty live as of May 19, 2026.
• June 12, 2025: Act 63 of 2025 (S.69) signed, creating Vermont Age-Appropriate Design Code Act at 9 V.S.A. sections 2449a to 2449j, effective January 1, 2027.
• June 6, 2024: Act 161 of 2024 (H.878) signed, amending 13 V.S.A. 2606 to cover AI-generated deepfake intimate imagery.
• June 13, 2024: Governor Phil Scott vetoed H.121 (Vermont Data Privacy Act); Senate override failed June 17, 2024 on a 14-to-15 vote. H.121 is not law.

Vermont recording laws in depth

The following sub-pages cover specific Vermont recording contexts in greater depth than this hub.

By type of recording

• Vermont Audio Recording Laws
• Vermont Video Recording Laws
• Vermont Phone Call Recording Laws
• Vermont Voyeurism Laws
• Vermont Dashcam Laws

By place or relationship

• Vermont Laws on Recording in Public
• Vermont Laws on Recording Police
• Vermont Workplace Recording Laws
• Vermont Security Camera Laws
• Vermont Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws
• Vermont Medical Recording Laws
• Vermont School Recording Laws

More Vermont laws

• Vermont Alimony Laws
• Vermont At-Will Employment Laws
• Vermont Child Custody Laws
• Vermont Data Privacy Laws
• Vermont Landlord-Tenant Laws

This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Recording laws change and apply differently to each situation. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed Vermont attorney.

More Vermont Laws

• Vermont AI Meeting Recording Laws
• Vermont Alimony Laws
• Vermont At-Will Employment Laws
• Vermont Car Accident Laws
• Vermont Car Seat Laws
• Vermont Child Custody Laws
• Vermont Child Support Laws
• Vermont Common Law Marriage Laws
• Vermont Data Privacy Laws
• Vermont Deepfake Laws
• Vermont Divorce Laws
• Vermont Dog Bite Laws
• Vermont Emancipation Laws
• Vermont Expungement Laws
• Vermont Hit and Run Laws
• Vermont Landlord-Tenant Laws