Virginia

Virginia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules

By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 202613 min read

Virginia is a one-party consent state under Va. Code § 19.2-62: any participant in a conversation may record it without telling the other parties. Recording someone without their consent and without being a party yourself is a Class 6 felony, and the victim has a civil right of action for statutory damages plus attorney fees. There is one major wrinkle: even a lawful one-party recording is presumptively inadmissible in most Virginia civil proceedings under a separate evidence statute, Va. Code § 8.01-420.2.

Virginia recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
Consent rule	One-party consent
Main statute	Va. Code § 19.2-62
When is recording illegal?	When no party to the conversation consents
Criminal penalty	Class 6 felony: 1-5 years prison OR up to 12 months jail + $2,500 fine
Civil damages	$400/day or $4,000 min; $800/day or $8,000 min for privileged communications, plus punitives and attorney fees (§ 19.2-69)
Hidden cameras	Class 1 misdemeanor (§ 18.2-386.1); Class 6 felony if victim under 18 or offender has 2+ prior § 18.2-386.1 convictions within 10 years
Recording police	Constitutionally protected (Sharpe v. Winterville, 4th Cir. 2023)

For deeper analysis of each scenario, see the in-depth guides below.

Recording in-person conversations in Virginia

Virginia's one-party rule is in Va. Code § 19.2-62(B)(2): "It shall not be a criminal offense under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception." If you are on the call or in the room, you can record without telling anyone else.

The statute covers in-person oral communications, phone calls, and electronic communications. Oral communications are protected only where the speaker has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A loud argument on a public sidewalk generally does not qualify; a quiet conversation in a closed office does.

If you are not a party to the conversation, you cannot record it without consent from at least one participant. Placing a hidden device to capture conversations between other people is a Class 6 felony under § 19.2-62(A), regardless of where you place it.

two business professionals shaking hands across a small meeting table, both in three-quarter view, a printed paper agend

Recording phone calls in Virginia

The same one-party rule applies to phone calls: any participant may record without notice. This covers landline, cell, VoIP (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet, WhatsApp), and conference calls you are personally on.

The civil-court paradox. Even though the recording is criminally lawful, Va. Code § 8.01-420.2 makes it presumptively inadmissible in any Virginia civil proceeding. The recording comes in only if: (1) every party to the call knew it was being recorded, OR (2) the recording contains admissions of criminal conduct that is the basis for the civil suit, at least one party knew of the recording, and the case is not a divorce, separate-maintenance, or annulment proceeding. The divorce carve-out is absolute: a spousal phone recording stays out of family court even if the spouse admits criminal conduct on the tape.

Cross-state calls. If the other party is in a two-party consent state (Maryland, California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Washington, Massachusetts, Illinois), that state's stricter rule may also govern the call. Federal ECPA sets a one-party floor under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) but does not preempt stricter state law. Obtain consent or consult counsel before recording a call involving a stricter state.

For full coverage of Virginia's phone-call rules, see the Virginia Phone Call Recording Laws guide.

side profile of a woman in a business blouse holding a smartphone to her ear mid-call, walking through a sunlit office h

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Virginia has no statute banning Ring doorbells, indoor nanny cams, or home surveillance systems. The legality turns on where the camera points and whether it captures audio.

Video-only cameras raise no § 19.2-62 issue. But a camera aimed into a neighbor's bedroom window, or installed in a guest bathroom, can violate the voyeurism statute (§ 18.2-386.1) or the peeping statute (Va. Code § 18.2-130) regardless of audio.

Audio-capable cameras bring in § 19.2-62. A Ring doorbell capturing your own front-porch conversation is generally fine because you are a party to the interaction. A nanny cam recording a caregiver's interactions in your home is legally defensible when you give consent as a party. Covertly capturing a private conversation between two third parties on your property, when you are not participating, is harder to defend under § 19.2-62(A).

Voyeurism statute. Va. Code § 18.2-386.1 makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to videotape or photograph a nonconsenting person who is nude or in a state of undress in a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, bedroom, or other place with a reasonable expectation of privacy. It also covers "upskirt" devices placed beneath or between a person's legs to capture intimate parts, regardless of location. The offense escalates to a Class 6 felony when the victim is under 18, or when the offender has two or more prior § 18.2-386.1 convictions within the preceding 10 years on different dates and not part of a common scheme.

Peeping statute. Va. Code § 18.2-130 separately covers peeping or spying into any dwelling, restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel or motel room, tanning bed or booth, or bedroom and is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

For the full home-surveillance analysis, see Virginia Security Camera Laws and Virginia Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws.

a delivery driver in a uniform standing at a front door step holding a small cardboard package, captured from a low door

Penalties for illegal recording in Virginia

Criminal penalties

Violating § 19.2-62(A) by intercepting, disclosing, or using a communication without consent is a Class 6 felony in every case. Under Va. Code § 18.2-10(f), the sentence is 1 to 5 years in prison, OR up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine at the court's or jury's discretion. The 12-month jail branch is a sentencing alternative, not a separate misdemeanor: the conviction is a felony either way.

The Class 1 misdemeanor in § 19.2-62(C) applies only to electronic communication service providers that unlawfully divulge intercepted communications. It is not available to private individuals who illegally record.

Civil penalties

Va. Code § 19.2-69 gives the victim a civil cause of action for actual damages (not less than $400 per day or $4,000, whichever is higher), punitive damages, and attorney fees. For communications between spouses, attorney and client, healthcare provider and patient, a licensed professional counselor or clinical psychologist and client, or a member of the clergy and penitent, the floor doubles to $800 per day or $8,000.

Violation	Class	Sentence
Unlawful interception, disclosure, or use (§ 19.2-62(A))	Class 6 felony	1-5 years prison OR up to 12 months jail + $2,500 fine
Device manufacture, sale, possession (§ 19.2-63)	Class 6 felony	Same
Service-provider unauthorized divulgence (§ 19.2-62(C))	Class 1 misdemeanor	Up to 12 months jail + $2,500 fine
Voyeurism, first offense (§ 18.2-386.1)	Class 1 misdemeanor	Up to 12 months jail + $2,500 fine
Voyeurism, victim under 18 or two+ prior convictions within 10 years	Class 6 felony	1-5 years prison OR up to 12 months jail + $2,500 fine
NCII dissemination including AI deepfakes (§ 18.2-386.2)	Class 1 misdemeanor	Up to 12 months jail + $2,500 fine
Peeping or spying (§ 18.2-130)	Class 1 misdemeanor	Up to 12 months jail + $2,500 fine

Va. Code § 19.2-65 also bars unlawfully intercepted communications and any evidence derived from them from any Virginia court, grand jury, or agency proceeding.

reporter in three-quarter view holding a small handheld microphone toward a person speaking at a podium, both visible fr

Recording the police in Virginia

Recording police officers performing their public duties is protected by the First Amendment in Virginia. The controlling precedent is Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep't, 59 F.4th 674 (4th Cir. 2023). In Sharpe, the Fourth Circuit held that recording and livestreaming a traffic stop is constitutionally protected speech and that a town policy prohibiting the practice could not survive intermediate scrutiny without a strong, narrowly tailored government interest.

After February 7, 2023, the right to record police is "clearly established" in the Fourth Circuit (which covers Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, and West Virginia). Officers acting after that date cannot claim qualified immunity for suppressing ordinary police-recording First Amendment claims.

Practical limits remain: you may not interfere with police operations, trespass to get a better vantage point, or disobey a lawful time-place-manner order such as an instruction to step back. The right is to record from where you have a lawful right to be.

For the full analysis, see Virginia Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in Virginia

Workplace recording and NLRB limits

Virginia's one-party rule applies in the workplace: an employee who is part of a conversation with a manager, HR representative, or coworker may record without notice. Employers who are parties to the conversation may also record under § 19.2-62(B)(2).

Blanket "no recording on premises" policies face NLRB scrutiny. Under Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), a workplace rule is presumptively unlawful if it could reasonably chill Section 7 activity. The employer must show a legitimate, substantial interest that a narrower rule cannot serve. NLRB GC Memo 25-07 (June 25, 2025) separately treats surreptitious recording of a collective-bargaining session as a per se unfair labor practice, but that rule is narrow and does not roll back Stericycle.

For the full workplace analysis, see Virginia Workplace Recording Laws.

AI-generated deepfakes and NCII

Va. Code § 18.2-386.2 makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to maliciously disseminate intimate images of another person with intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate. The 2024 General Assembly extended this to synthetic and AI-generated imagery under 2024 Acts of Assembly Chapter 697 (HB 926), effective July 1, 2024: the statute now reaches any image depicting a recognizable real person, including deepfakes and face-swapped content. The same legislation extended the misdemeanor statute of limitations for §§ 18.2-386.1 and 18.2-386.2 to five years from the offense or one year from discovery, whichever is later.

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025) provides a parallel federal remedy: it criminalizes publishing nonconsensual intimate depictions of adults (up to 2 years) or minors (up to 3 years), including AI-generated deepfakes, and requires covered platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours of victim notice.

Body-worn cameras and government recording

Virginia law-enforcement agencies deploying body-worn cameras must adopt a written operating policy under Va. Code § 15.2-1723.1, informed by the Department of Criminal Justice Services model policy. Body-worn camera footage is generally treated as a criminal investigative file under Va. Code § 2.2-3706.1, with public access governed by Virginia's Freedom of Information Act.

Under Va. Code § 19.2-390.04, officers must make an audiovisual recording of any custodial interrogation at a place of detention, or an audio recording where audiovisual is not feasible. Failure to record does not automatically suppress resulting statements, but courts may weigh it.

Public meetings of boards of supervisors, city councils, school boards, planning commissions, and the General Assembly are open and may be recorded under Virginia's Freedom of Information Act (Va. Code § 2.2-3700 et seq.).

Federal overlay: ECPA and FCC

ECPA, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522 sets a one-party consent floor that Virginia's statute matches. The FCC's One-to-One TCPA Consent Rule (FCC 24-24) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (Jan. 24, 2025) and formally eliminated by the FCC in September 2025: there is no active federal one-to-one consent obligation. The FCC's AI-voice robocall ruling (FCC 24-17, Feb. 8, 2024) remains active and requires prior express consent for AI-generated voice calls under the TCPA.

Dashcams and wearables

Virginia has no statute restricting personal dashcams. A driver who is a party to an in-vehicle conversation may record audio under § 19.2-62(B)(2) without notice to passengers. Dashcam audio captured inside a vehicle is in-person oral communication, not a telephone conversation, so § 8.01-420.2's civil-court admissibility bar does not apply to it. Wearable recorders (smartwatches, smart glasses, body-mounted cameras) follow the same one-party framework: if you are a participant, you may record. Smart glasses add a video dimension and pointing them into private spaces still triggers § 18.2-386.1 regardless of audio consent.

For the full dashcam analysis, see Virginia Dashcam Laws.

Recent legal developments

July 1, 2024: Va. Code § 18.2-386.2 extended to AI-generated and synthetic intimate imagery by 2024 Acts of Assembly Chapter 697 (HB 926, Del. Irene Shin). Statute of limitations for §§ 18.2-386.1 and 18.2-386.2 extended to five years or one year from discovery.
February 7, 2023: Fourth Circuit declares in Sharpe v. Winterville Police Dep't, 59 F.4th 674, that recording and livestreaming police performing public duties is clearly established First Amendment speech in the circuit.
August 2, 2023: NLRB adopts new Stericycle standard making blanket workplace no-recording policies presumptively unlawful under the NLRA.
June 25, 2025: NLRB GC Memo 25-07 treats surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se Section 8(a)(5)/8(d) violation (narrow; not a general Stericycle rollback).
May 19, 2025: TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12) signed into law, criminalizing nonconsensual intimate deepfakes at the federal level and requiring platform takedowns within 48 hours.
January 24, 2025 / September 2025: FCC One-to-One Consent Rule (FCC 24-24) vacated by 11th Circuit and formally eliminated by FCC. No longer in effect.

Virginia recording laws in depth

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Virginia 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 Virginia attorney.

More Virginia Laws

Sources and References

ca4.uscourts.gov.gov
Primary criminal statute(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
Criminal-side exclusionary rule(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
Civil damages(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
Civil-court evidence rule(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
Voyeurism / hidden-camera statute(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
NCII / deepfake statute(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
Peeping / spying statute(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
Felony classes / Class 6 sentencing(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
Misdemeanor classes / Class 1 sentencing(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
Body-worn camera written-policy requirement(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
Custodial interrogation recording(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
FOIA access to body-cam footage(law.lis.virginia.gov).gov
Deepfake / AI synthetic imagery extension to § 18.2-386.2(legacylis.virginia.gov).gov
Federal one-party consent floor(law.cornell.edu)
FCC AI-voice robocall rule (in force)(docs.fcc.gov).gov
Vacatur of FCC One-to-One Consent Rule(ca11.uscourts.gov).gov
Federal NCII / deepfake criminal statute(congress.gov).gov
Controlling NLRB workplace-rule test(nlrb.gov).gov
GC guidance (narrow per se rule for bargaining sessions)(nlrb.gov).gov
Connected-camera vendor consent requirement(ftc.gov).gov
Federal one-party-consent default for federal investigators(justice.gov).gov
Federal health-information privacy(ecfr.gov).gov