Vermont
Vermont Laws on Recording in Public
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 generally allows recording in public places where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists. The main limit is the voyeurism law, 13 V.S.A. 2605, which makes it a crime even in public to photograph or film a person's intimate areas, such as under clothing, without their knowledge and consent. The First Amendment protects filming streets, parks, and government proceedings. For audio, federal one-party consent under 18 U.S.C. 2511 applies when you participate in the conversation.
Vermont broadly permits recording in public. Apart from the voyeurism law's ban on recording intimate areas without consent, no state statute prohibits filming in areas without a reasonable privacy expectation. The First Amendment protects much public recording, and Vermont's Open Meeting Law (1 V.S.A. 310-314) requires most public bodies to record their own meetings.
Public Recording Rights
You can film on streets, sidewalks, parks, government buildings, and at public events. No press credential required. In State v. Brooks, 157 Vt. 490, 601 A.2d 963 (1991), the Vermont Supreme Court held that police did not need a warrant under Article 11 to electronically overhear and record a defendant's conversation with a police informant wearing a concealed device, because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public parking lot, where conversations are subject to the eyes and ears of passersby. Article 11 limits government searches, so the case addresses police monitoring rather than recording by private individuals.
In August 2026 the Second Circuit, which covers Vermont, held that the First Amendment protects recording law enforcement activity in public, including recording a police station's exterior from a public sidewalk (Massimino v. Benoit, No. 25-1104). The officers in that case still received qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established when the 2018 arrest happened.
Government Meetings
Vermont's Open Meeting Law requires most public bodies to record their own meetings. State boards and commissions, other than advisory bodies, must record every meeting and post the recording for at least 30 days after the minutes are approved. Local boards such as selectboards and school boards, other than advisory bodies, must record in audio or video and post the recording for 30 days, unless compliance would impose an undue hardship on the town (1 V.S.A. 312(a)(3), (a)(6)). These rules come from Act 133 of 2024, and Act 51 of 2025 (effective June 9, 2025) revised them.
The law does not expressly give members of the public a right to make their own recordings. It guarantees a reasonable opportunity to comment, subject to the chair's reasonable rules. If you plan to record a meeting, check the body's rules first.
Audio in Public
Federal one-party consent applies. If you participate in a conversation, you can record. Public conversations at normal volume carry no privacy expectation.
The rule is different if you are not part of the conversation. Secretly capturing a conversation you are not a party to, without any party's consent, can be illegal interception under 18 U.S.C. 2511(1)(a) when the speakers expect, under circumstances justifying that expectation, that they are not being intercepted.
Private Property
Businesses can set recording rules and ask you to leave. Religious venues and entertainment facilities may restrict recording. Footage captured before being asked to stop is generally legal.
Drone Recording
Drone recording in public is generally permitted subject to FAA rules. Do not record private areas with privacy expectations.
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
Can I record in public in Vermont?
Generally, yes. The First Amendment protects much public recording. The main exception is 13 V.S.A. 2605, which makes it a crime even in public to photograph or film a person's intimate areas, such as under clothing, without their knowledge and consent.
Can I record a government meeting in Vermont?
Usually, but the law does not expressly say so. The Open Meeting Law (1 V.S.A. 312) requires most public bodies to record their own meetings and post the recordings. It does not expressly give attendees a right to record, so check the body's rules before you start.
Can a store tell me to stop recording?
Yes. Businesses are private property. Footage captured before the request is generally legal.
Can I use a drone to record in public?
Yes, subject to FAA rules. Do not record private areas with privacy expectations.
Do I need permission to photograph people in public?
No. Voyeuristic recording under clothing is prohibited (13 V.S.A. 2605), but standard public photography is legal.
Updates
We corrected the page to say that Vermont's Open Meeting Law requires public bodies to record their own meetings but does not expressly give the public a right to record, noted that 13 V.S.A. 2605 bars filming intimate areas even in public, and added the Second Circuit's August 2026 ruling on recording police.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Clarified that State v. Brooks concerned police monitoring of a conversation with a wired informant and added that secretly intercepting a conversation you are not part of can violate federal wiretap law.
Added the correct reporter citation and a source link for State v. Brooks so readers can verify the case (the auditor's citation search had used a name-only query that missed it; a citation-targeted search confirmed the case is real and directly on point).
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
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.
Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 13: Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Chapter 59: Lewdness and Prostitution, Subchapter: LEWD AND INDECENT CONDUCT
§ 2605VoyeurismIn forcecited in 15 of our articles
(a) As used in this section: (1) “Bona fide private investigator or bona fide security guard” means an individual lawfully providing services, whether licensed or unlicensed, pursuant to 26 V.S.A. §§ 3151 and 3151a. (2) “Female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola. (3) “Circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that his or her intimate areas would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private area. This definition includes circumstances in which a person knowingly disrobes in front of another, but does not expect nor give consent for the other person to photograph, film, or record his or her intimate areas. (4) “Intimate areas” means the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of a person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In State v. DEVOID (2010) the Vermont Supreme Court reversed an attempted voyeurism conviction under section 2605(b)(1), holding the evidence could not show the defendant, on the ground, was able to see the complainant's intimate areas as the statute defines them, so looking at her window was not an overt act.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. DEVOID (Supreme Court of Vermont 2010, 188 Vt. 445)✓A man stared up at a second-floor shower window from the parking lot; a photograph taken inside the bathroom showed the complainant's intimate areas, as the statute defines them, were below the sill, so the court reversed his attempted-voyeurism conviction as unsupported.
- State v. Squiers (Supreme Court of Vermont 2006, 179 Vt. 388)“…r any object into the genital or anal opening of another”); 13 V.S.A. § 2605(a)(4) & (b) (prohibiting the viewing or…”
- State v. Beaudoin (Supreme Court of Vermont 2008, 185 Vt. 164)“…ter 1 includes §§ 2601 and 2602 and a section on voyeurism, 13 V.S.A. § 2605. Section 2601 makes it a felony to enga…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Vermont Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2025, Vermont Recording Laws (2026): No Wiretap Statute, One-Party Default, Vermont Medical Recording Laws
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 an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Can I Record My Boss Harassing Me? State-by-State Legal Guide (2026), Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?
Sources and References
- Vermont Open Meeting Law (1 V.S.A. 310-314)(legislature.vermont.gov).gov
- 13 V.S.A. 2605 -- Voyeurism(legislature.vermont.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 -- Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 - Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited(uscode.house.gov).gov