Vermont
Vermont 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. · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Vermont follows one-party consent for audio recording under federal law (18 U.S.C. 2511) because Vermont has no state wiretapping statute. As a participant, you may generally record a conversation without notifying others, with two Vermont limits covered below: a telemedicine or telephone health consultation needs both patient and provider consent, and 13 V.S.A. 2605(d) bars secretly recording a person who is in a private place within a home, though no Vermont court has said whether that reaches a participant's own audio recording. Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution adds one significant limit on government action: the Vermont Supreme Court has held that police cannot secretly record a conversation inside a private home without a warrant, even when they were invited in as guests.
Vermont's Unique Legal Framework
No State Wiretapping Statute
Vermont stands alone among all 50 states because it has never enacted a dedicated wiretapping or electronic surveillance statute. Recording rights come from three sources:
- Federal wiretap law (18 U.S.C. 2511) provides the primary statutory authority
- Vermont Supreme Court case law defines privacy expectations
- Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution provides privacy protections
The Key Court Cases
State v. Blow (1991): The Vermont Supreme Court first held that warrantless electronic monitoring of a conversation inside a private home, carried out by police, offends the core values of Article 11. This established that the home gets heightened protection from secret government recording.
State v. Brooks (1991): Recording a conversation in a public parking lot was lawful because the location was open and accessible, so there was no reasonable expectation of privacy.
State v. Geraw (2002): Building on Blow, the court held that police detectives invited into a defendant's home could not secretly tape record the kitchen-table conversation without a warrant, even though they were lawfully present. This is a limit on government conduct under Article 11, not a general rule for private citizens. A private participant in a conversation, including one held inside someone else's home, is covered by federal one-party consent, but 13 V.S.A. 2605(d) separately bars secretly recording "in any format a person" who has a reasonable expectation of privacy within a home or residence, and no Vermont court has said whether that reaches a guest's audio recording of a conversation they take part in.
State v. Rheaume, 2005 VT 106, 179 Vt. 39, 889 A.2d 711 (2005): A hospital emergency room treatment area is not a private space, because it is freely accessible to staff, so a patient there does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy under Article 11. The case itself concerned a state trooper's warrantless entry into the treatment area, and the opinion does not address recording, though it described the area as one where "conversations are subject to the eyes and ears of passersby."
One-Party Consent in Practice
One person in the conversation must know about and agree to the recording, and that person can be you. No announcement is required. If you are not a party to a conversation, you can still record it lawfully if at least one participant has consented, for example when a friend asks you to record their own phone call.
The consent exception has one limit under the federal statute that governs Vermont recordings: a recording is not protected if it is made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act, such as blackmail or extortion, even if the person recording is a participant in the conversation (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)).
Types of Audio Communications Covered
- Wire communications: phone calls, cell phones, VoIP
- Oral communications: in-person conversations with privacy expectations
- Electronic communications: texts, emails, video calls
Recording Phone Calls
You can generally record a call you take part in. This applies to cell phones, landlines, VoIP (Zoom, Teams, Meet), and messaging apps.
One exception is specific to health care. Under 18 V.S.A. 9361(d) and 9362(d), as amended by Act 80 of 2026 effective April 20, 2026, neither a health care provider nor a patient may record a provider's telemedicine consultation or audio-only telephone consultation with a patient unless both the patient and the provider consent. Before that amendment, the statutes barred recording these consultations altogether. That rule covers only those consultations.
Interstate Calls
Vermont borders two all-party consent states:
- Massachusetts: all-party consent
- New Hampshire: all-party consent
It is not settled which state's law a court would apply to a call between Vermont and one of these states, so the safe practice is to tell everyone on the call that you are recording or get their agreement first. Our recording consent checker can confirm which rule applies before you call Massachusetts or New Hampshire. Other states that require everyone's consent: California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Montana, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Others apply that rule only in part: Connecticut requires all-party consent for phone calls, enforced civilly under C.G.S. 52-570d; Nevada requires it for phone calls under Lane v. Allstate Insurance Co. (1998), reaffirmed in Ditech Financial v. Buckles (2017), while in-person recording there is one-party; Oregon requires it for in-person conversations but not phone calls; and Delaware has conflicting statutes, so get consent to be safe.
Recording In-Person Conversations
Legal when: you take part in the conversation, or a participant has agreed to the recording. Inside someone else's home, 13 V.S.A. 2605(d) separately bars secretly recording "in any format a person" who has a reasonable expectation of privacy within a home or residence, and no Vermont court has said whether that reaches a guest's audio recording of a conversation they take part in, so telling the homeowner is the safer course. If you are not part of the conversation and no participant has agreed, recording it can be a federal crime when the speakers reasonably expect not to be overheard, even in a public place; a loud conversation in an open public area usually carries no such expectation, but a quiet private one may.
Illegal when: you are not a party to the conversation and have no participant's consent, such as leaving a hidden device to capture a conversation you are not part of. Law enforcement faces an additional restriction: under Blow and Geraw, police cannot secretly record a conversation inside a private home without a warrant, even when invited in as guests.
Privacy Expectations by Location
The Vermont cases in this table concern police surveillance under Article 11, not private recording. For a private recorder who is not part of the conversation, federal law asks whether the speakers reasonably expected not to be overheard.
| Location | Privacy Expectation | Key Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Public parking lot | None against police participant recording | State v. Brooks (Article 11) |
| Hospital ER | None against police entry | State v. Rheaume (2005) (Article 11) |
| Public streets/parks | Usually none for conversations audible to passersby | 18 U.S.C. 2510(2) (oral communication) |
| Private home (vs. government recording) | Yes | State v. Blow; State v. Geraw |
| Hotel room | Yes | Common law |
| Private office (closed door) | Yes | Common law |
Penalties
Federal Criminal Penalties
| Offense | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|
| Illegal interception (18 U.S.C. 2511) | 5 years, fines |
| Illegal disclosure | 5 years, fines |
Civil Remedies (18 U.S.C. 2520)
- Actual damages, or statutory damages of whichever is greater between $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000
- Punitive damages
- Attorney fees
Audio Recordings as Evidence
Lawfully recorded audio is generally admissible in Vermont courts. A recording made in violation of the federal Wiretap Act is generally inadmissible in any court, including Vermont courts (18 U.S.C. 2515). Separately, recordings made by police in violation of Article 11, such as a warrantless secret recording inside a home, are suppressed in criminal cases. Standard authentication and relevance requirements apply.
More Vermont 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 Vermont Recording Laws
More Vermont Recording Topics
More Vermont Laws
- Vermont AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Vermont Dashcam Laws
- Vermont Data Privacy Laws
- Vermont Deepfake Laws
- Vermont Employee Monitoring Laws
- Vermont GPS Tracking Laws
- Vermont Police Bodycam Laws
- Vermont Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to audio record a conversation in Vermont without the other person knowing?
Generally yes, if you take part in the conversation. Vermont is a one-party consent state under federal law (18 U.S.C. 2511), and Vermont has no state wiretapping statute. Two Vermont-law limits apply: under 18 V.S.A. 9361(d) and 9362(d), as amended by Act 80 of 2026, a patient or health care provider may record a telemedicine or telephone consultation only if both consent, and inside someone else's home 13 V.S.A. 2605(d) may reach secretly recording a person there.
Why does Vermont not have a wiretapping law?
Vermont is the only state that never enacted a comprehensive wiretapping statute. The legislature has considered such legislation but none has passed. Federal law (18 U.S.C. 2511) and state court decisions fill the gap.
Can I record a phone call with someone in Massachusetts from Vermont?
You should get consent first. Massachusetts requires all-party consent, and it is not settled which state's law a court would apply to the call, so getting consent is the safe course.
What are the penalties for illegal audio recording in Vermont?
Federal law (18 U.S.C. 2511) provides up to 5 years imprisonment. Under 18 U.S.C. 2520 a court may award actual damages, or statutory damages of whichever is greater between $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.
Can I place a hidden audio recorder in someone's home in Vermont?
It depends on whether you are a participant in the conversation. If you are, for example recording your own visit to someone else's house, federal one-party consent covers you, but 13 V.S.A. 2605(d) separately bars secretly recording in any format a person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy within a home or residence, and no Vermont court has said whether that reaches a guest's audio recording of a conversation they take part in. Telling the homeowner, or getting agreement, is the safer course. If you are not a party and have no participant's consent, planting a device to capture a conversation you are not part of is illegal interception. Law enforcement faces a separate, stricter rule: under State v. Geraw (2002), the Vermont Supreme Court held that police cannot secretly record inside a private home without a warrant, even when invited in as guests, because Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution limits government surveillance specifically.
Updates
Narrowed the description of Vermont's in-home recording statute (13 V.S.A. 2605(d)) to match its text and noted that no court has decided whether it covers a participant's own audio recording.
We added to the introduction that recording a telehealth consultation needs both patient and provider consent and that Vermont law limits secret recording of people inside a home.
Corrected the page to note that Vermont law, as amended by Act 80 of 2026, allows a telehealth consultation to be recorded only with both patient and provider consent, that the voyeurism statute may reach secret recording inside someone else's home, that it is unsettled which state's law governs an interstate call, and that a public location alone does not make recording other people's conversations lawful; also completed the list of all-party consent states and corrected the evidence rule.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the description of State v. Rheaume to reflect that the decision addressed a trooper's warrantless entry into an emergency treatment area and did not address recording.
Hedged the Connecticut and Nevada entries in the interstate all-party consent list instead of listing them flatly, restated the federal civil-damages formula under 18 U.S.C. 2520 as the greater of $100 a day of violation or $10,000 (was shown as a flat $10,000), and added a source citation and link for State v. Rheaume.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
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.
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)
§ 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: Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026), Otter.ai Faces Consolidated Wiretap Class Action Over Its AI Meeting Notetaker and All-Party Consent
Sources and References
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 -- Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. 2520 -- Civil Damages for Wiretap Violations(law.cornell.edu)
- Vermont Constitution -- Article 11(legislature.vermont.gov).gov
- FCC Guide on Recording Telephone Conversations(fcc.gov).gov
- Reporters Committee -- Vermont Recording Guide(rcfp.org)
- Act 80 of 2026 (H.84), As Enacted: recording telehealth appointments (Vermont General Assembly)(legislature.vermont.gov).gov