Vermont
Vermont Voyeurism 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
Vermont criminalizes voyeurism under 13 V.S.A. 2605, prohibiting intentional viewing, photographing, or recording of a person's intimate areas without consent wherever a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. Under the law as rewritten effective July 1, 2026, a first offense against an adult carries up to two years in prison, a first offense against a victim under 18 carries up to three years, and displaying or disclosing to a third party an image recorded in violation of 2605(c) carries up to five years, regardless of the victim's age.
Vermont addresses voyeurism and hidden camera offenses through two primary statutes: 13 V.S.A. 2605 (voyeurism) and 13 V.S.A. 2606 (nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images). Vermont Supreme Court case law, particularly State v. Geraw (2002), separately limits secret police recording in the home.
This guide covers what conduct is prohibited, criminal penalties, the interaction with federal law, and remedies for victims.
Vermont Voyeurism Statute (13 V.S.A. 2605)
What the Law Prohibits
Vermont rewrote its voyeurism law effective July 1, 2026 (Act 89 of the 2025 adjourned session). Under the current text, a person commits voyeurism by intentionally viewing (2605(b)), or photographing, filming, or recording (2605(c)), a person's intimate areas or a person engaged in sexual conduct, without that person's knowledge and consent, in a place or under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The intimate-areas rule applies regardless of whether the person is in a public or private setting.
The statute is not limited to intimate areas. Under 13 V.S.A. 2605(d), no person may intentionally conduct surveillance of, or photograph, film, or record, a person without that person's knowledge and consent while the person is in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy within a home or residence. Bona fide private investigators and security guards engaged in otherwise lawful activities within the scope of their employment are exempt from that subsection. Under 2605(e), no person may intentionally display or disclose to a third party an image recorded in violation of 2605(c).
Criminal Penalties
These are the penalties under 13 V.S.A. 2605(j), effective July 1, 2026:
| Offense | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|
| First offense, victim 18 or older (2605(b), (c), (d)) | 2 years | $1,000 |
| Second or subsequent, victim 18 or older | 3 years | $5,000 |
| First offense, victim under 18 | 3 years | $5,000 |
| Second or subsequent, victim under 18 | 5 years | $10,000 |
| Displaying/disclosing to a third party an image recorded in violation of 2605(c) (13 V.S.A. 2605(e)) | 5 years | $5,000 |
Under 13 V.S.A. 1, an offense punishable by more than two years is a felony, so an adult first offense is a misdemeanor while repeat offenses, offenses against minors, and disclosure are felonies. Prosecutions under 2605(c) and (e) may be brought within 40 years (13 V.S.A. 4501(c)).
Nonconsensual Intimate Images (13 V.S.A. 2606)
As amended effective July 1, 2026, 13 V.S.A. 2606 makes it a crime to knowingly disclose a visual image of an identifiable person who is nude or engaged in sexual conduct, without consent, with the intent to harm, harass, or intimidate the person depicted, where the disclosure would cause a reasonable person to suffer harm. Consenting to the recording is not consent to its disclosure.
Threatening to share such an image is now a separate crime. Under the new 13 V.S.A. 2607 (sexual extortion, effective July 1, 2026), no one may threaten to disclose a nude or sexual image to force a person to produce images, engage in sexual conduct, engage in any act against the person's will, refrain from an act the person has a legal right to do, or hand over money. It carries up to 3 years or $3,000 for an adult victim, up to 10 years or $10,000 for a victim under 18, and up to 15 years or $15,000 if serious bodily injury or death results.
| Offense | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|
| Standard | 2 years | $2,000 |
| For profit | 5 years | $10,000 |
2024 Deepfake Amendment (Act 161)
Act 161 of 2024 (H.878), signed June 6, 2024, amended 13 V.S.A. 2606 to cover digitized and synthetic intimate images. AI-generated deepfakes that depict an identifiable person in a sexual manner are now expressly covered. The amendment added a definition of "digitization" to bring computer-generated intimate imagery within the statute's scope.
Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act
The TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed May 19, 2025 (Pub. L. 119-12), requires online platforms to remove nonconsensual intimate imagery -- including AI-generated deepfakes -- within 48 hours of receiving a victim's request; that platform compliance duty took effect May 19, 2026. The Act also makes it a federal crime to knowingly publish intimate images of a person without consent, including AI-generated fakes, or to threaten to do so. This law operates alongside Vermont's 13 V.S.A. 2606 and provides an additional federal removal remedy.
Hidden Cameras and State v. Geraw
The Vermont Supreme Court ruled in State v. Geraw (2002) that police secretly recording an interview inside a person's home, without a warrant, violates Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution. The court limited its holding to secret police recording of an interview in the home; it did not address cameras or recording by private individuals.
Where Protections Apply
For voyeurism, the statute itself sets the line. It protects any place where a reasonable person would believe they could undress in private, or would expect to be safe from unwanted intrusion or surveillance, such as bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, hotel rooms, and medical treatment rooms. It also protects any circumstances where a person's intimate areas would not be visible to the public, even in a public place.
Vermont's search-and-seizure cases concern police, not private recording. State v. Brooks, 157 Vt. 490 (1991) held police could record a conversation in a public parking lot without a warrant, and Geraw (2002) held they need a warrant to secretly record an interview in a home.
Federal Law Interaction
The Video Voyeurism Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 1801) applies only within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, such as certain federal enclaves, not on all federal property. Federal wiretap law (18 U.S.C. 2511) applies to audio captured by hidden cameras.
Reporting
Contact local law enforcement. Do not disturb hidden devices. Document details. Victims can also sue. Since July 1, 2026, 13 V.S.A. 2605(k) lets a person sue anyone who intentionally shows or shares an image recorded of them in violation of 2605(c) when that causes harm. 13 V.S.A. 2606(e) already let a person sue anyone who knowingly shares a nude or sexual image of them without consent, and Act 89 removed its filing deadline. Courts can order the images taken down, the case can be filed under a pseudonym, and there is no deadline to sue under either section. Common-law claims such as invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress may also apply, so consult an attorney.
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 voyeurism a felony in Vermont?
It can be. Under 13 V.S.A. 1, an offense punishable by more than two years is a felony. Under the current text of 13 V.S.A. 2605(j), a first voyeurism offense against an adult carries up to 2 years, so it is a misdemeanor, while a repeat offense (up to 3 years), a first offense against a victim under 18 (up to 3 years), and displaying or disclosing to a third party an image recorded in violation of 2605(c) (up to 5 years) are felonies. Nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images for profit carries up to 5 years.
Are hidden cameras illegal in Vermont?
Under State v. Geraw, police cannot secretly record an interview in your home without a warrant. Separately, 13 V.S.A. 2605 makes it a crime to use a hidden camera to record a person's intimate areas or sexual activity without their knowledge and consent where they expect privacy, or to secretly record anyone in a private area of a home.
Does Vermont law cover deepfakes and AI-generated intimate images?
Yes. Act 161 of 2024 amended 13 V.S.A. 2606 to cover digitized and synthetic intimate images, including AI-generated deepfakes. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed May 19, 2025, also requires platforms to remove such content within 48 hours of a victim's request; that platform duty took effect May 19, 2026.
Does Vermont have a revenge porn law?
Yes. 13 V.S.A. 2606 criminalizes nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images with up to 2 years imprisonment, or 5 years if done for profit. The 2024 deepfake amendment extended this to AI-generated imagery.
What should I do if I find a hidden camera in Vermont?
Contact law enforcement. Do not disturb the device. Document everything. You may be able to sue under 13 V.S.A. 2605(k) if images are shared, so consult an attorney about civil remedies.
Updates
Reworded the voyeurism penalty answer so it no longer implies the adult penalty tiers are new as of July 1, 2026; Act 89 added the under-18 tiers.
We clarified that sharing unlawfully recorded intimate images, and the 2606 image-sharing crime and lawsuit, existed before Act 89, which renumbered, narrowed and extended them, and corrected the wording of the new sexual extortion law.
We updated the page for Vermont's July 1, 2026 rewrite of its voyeurism and intimate-image laws, including the new subsection letters, higher penalties for victims under 18, the new sexual extortion crime (13 V.S.A. 2607), the narrowed intent element in 13 V.S.A. 2606, and the new civil claims with no filing deadline. We also corrected the scope of the federal video voyeurism law and the TAKE IT DOWN Act, and removed a misapplied police-search case.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Added Vermont's voyeurism provisions on secret surveillance or recording inside a home or residence and on recording sexual conduct (13 V.S.A. 2605(d) and (e)), which the page previously omitted.
Corrected the description of State v. Geraw (2002) to the holding the court actually reached: police may not secretly record an interview in a person's home without a warrant.
Corrected the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act's signing date from May 19, 2026 to the actual May 19, 2025 (2026 is the platform compliance deadline, which has now passed), and added the correct reporter citation and source link for State v. Brooks.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the 13 V.S.A. 2605(c) penalty: the 5-year/$5,000 tier applies to displaying or disclosing a recorded image to a third party, not to offenses involving minors (the statute has no minors-based enhancement).
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
§ 2606Disclosure of sexually explicit images without consentIn forcecited in 10 of our articles
(a) As used in this section: (1) “Disclose” includes transfer, publish, distribute, exhibit, or reproduce. (2) “Harm” means physical injury, financial injury, or serious emotional distress. (3) “Nude” means any one or more of the following uncovered parts of the human body: (A) genitals; (B) pubic area; (C) anus; or (D) post-pubescent female nipple. (4) “Sexual conduct” shall have the same meaning as in section 2821 of this title. (5) “Visual image” includes a photograph, film, videotape, recording, or digital reproduction, including an image created or altered by digitization. (6) “Digitization” means the process of altering an image in a realistic manner utilizing an image or images of a person, including images other than the person depicted, or computer-generated images. (b)(1) A person violates this section if the person knowingly discloses a visual image of an identifiable person who is nude or who is engaged in sexual conduct, without the person’s consent, with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce the person depicted, and the disclosure would cause a reasonable person to suffer harm.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Rebekah S. VanBuren (Supreme Court of Vermont 2019, 2018 VT 95)“…s statute banning disclosure of nonconsensual pornography. 13 V.S.A. § 2606. We conclude that the statute is const…”
- Ava Morton v. Mayah Young (Supreme Court of Vermont 2023, 298 A.3d 230)“…ute criminalizing disclosure of nonconsensual pornography, 13 V.S.A. § 2606, did not violate the First Amendment. I…”
- corriveau v. windham (Vermont Superior Court 2024)“…ithout saying that an injunction is an equitable remedy.”); 13 V.S.A. § 2606(e)(2) (explicitly listing “a preliminar…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Vermont Video Recording Laws, Vermont AI Laws and Regulation (2026), Vermont Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 1801Video voyeurismIn forcecited in 81 of our articles
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. In this section— the term “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast; the term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual; the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means— circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or circumstances in which a…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 53 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have applied 18 U.S.C. 1801 mainly at its edges. United States v. Johnson (2010) read it as Congress's answer to secretly filming nudity on federal property, acquitting on a child exploitation charge instead. EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security (2011) applied the Section 1801(c) law enforcement exception to a TSA scanner claim.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Anthony Helton (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2019, 944 F.3d 198)“…from this list of federal offenses is video voyeurism under 18 U.S.C. § 1801. Rather than list this statute as an enu…”
- United States v. Johnson (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2010, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1059)✓A weightlifting coach hid a camera to film minors weighing in nude; acquitting him under the child exploitation statute, the court called that conduct plain video voyeurism under section 1801, but noted the section reaches only federal maritime and territorial jurisdiction.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2011, 653 F.3d 1)✓Privacy groups challenged TSA body scanners under the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act; the D.C. Circuit held the statute's exception for lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity applied to airport screening, so the section 1801 claim failed.
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), California Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Penalties and Protections (2026), Delaware Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras, Penalties, and Privacy Protections (2026)
§ 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
- 13 V.S.A. 2605 -- Voyeurism(legislature.vermont.gov).gov
- 13 V.S.A. 2606 -- Nonconsensual Disclosure of Intimate Images(legislature.vermont.gov).gov
- Act 161 of 2024 (H.878) -- Deepfake Amendment to 2606(legislature.vermont.gov).gov
- Vermont Constitution -- Article 11(legislature.vermont.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 1801 -- Video Voyeurism Prevention Act(law.cornell.edu)