Arizona Recording Laws (2026): ARS 13-3005 + 13-3019

Quick Answer: Is Arizona a One-Party or Two-Party Consent State?

Arizona is a one-party consent state for audio. Under ARS § 13-3005 and the broad exception in ARS § 13-3012(9), a party to a wire, electronic, or oral communication, or any person who is physically present during the communication, may record without notifying anyone else. The "or a person who is present during the communication" language is broader than the federal one-party rule under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d).

Video is different in one specific scenario. Recording someone with a camera in a private place during nudity or intimate activity, or capturing intimate body parts not otherwise visible to the public, is a Class 5 felony under ARS § 13-3019. Arizona is not a generic two-party state for video. Ordinary face-to-face video in a kitchen, restaurant, sidewalk, classroom, or conference room is outside ARS § 13-3019's reach.

Arizona Recording Law Summary

Key Point	Answer
Audio consent	One-party (ARS § 13-3005 with § 13-3012(9))
Audio consent breadth	Broader than federal: party or person present during communication
Video in private place during nudity or intimate activity	All-party rule under ARS § 13-3019 (Class 5 felony)
Video in public place	Generally permitted (ARS § 13-3019 reaches private places only)
Criminal penalty (audio)	Class 5 felony under ARS § 13-3005; pen register Class 6 felony
Criminal penalty (video)	Class 5 baseline; Class 6 secret view without device; Class 4 distribution where person recognizable
Civil remedy (audio)	ARS § 12-731: $100/day or $10,000 minimum, plus actual, punitive, and attorney fees
Civil remedy (video)	Common-law intrusion (no statutory floor); ARS § 13-1425 NCII overlay where applicable
Police recording buffer	ARS § 13-3732 / HB 2319 permanently enjoined and unenforceable
Federal floor	One-party under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)

For the canonical state-by-state list of strict jurisdictions, see two-party consent states. For the federal hub treatment, see United States recording laws.

Arizona's Two Recording Statutes: ARS § 13-3005 and ARS § 13-3019

Arizona is one of a small number of states that runs audio and video recording through two structurally different criminal regimes. Most states either roll both into a single wiretap statute (one-party for audio and silent on video) or apply an all-party rule to both. Arizona instead pairs a broad one-party audio rule with a discrete voyeurism statute keyed to private-place capture and hidden-angle imagery.

ARS § 13-3005 is the audio wiretap statute. It governs aural acquisition of wire, electronic, or oral communications. It applies a one-party rule under ARS § 13-3012(9) that lets a party to the communication, or any person present during the communication, consent to a recording. ARS § 13-3019 is a separate criminal statute targeting surreptitious visual recording in private places. It is a voyeurism statute keyed to (1) restrooms, bathrooms, locker rooms, bedrooms, or any location where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and is in a state of nudity or intimate activity, and (2) hidden-angle capture of genitalia, buttock, or female breast not otherwise visible to the public.

The two statutes apply concurrently. A defendant can violate one, the other, or both. A husband who installs a hidden microphone in the marital bedroom while away may violate ARS § 13-3005 if he is not "present" during the captured conversation. A roommate who hides a camera in a shared bathroom and films the other tenant showering may violate ARS § 13-3019(A)(1) on the video, plus ARS § 13-3005 on any captured audio. A peer who captures upskirt footage at a public event may violate ARS § 13-3019(A)(2) without ever implicating ARS § 13-3005.

The most important framing: Arizona is one-party consent for audio with a discrete private-place voyeurism regime for video. It is not a generic "two-party" or "all-party" state for video in ordinary non-private spaces.

Side-by-side: ARS § 13-3005 vs. ARS § 13-3019

Feature	ARS § 13-3005 (audio)	ARS § 13-3019 (video voyeurism)
What is covered	Aural acquisition of wire, electronic, or oral communications	Knowing surreptitious capture or secret viewing of another in private place during nudity or intimate activity, or hidden-angle capture of intimate body parts
Consent rule	One-party (party to the communication or person present during it)	All-party in scope situations; otherwise statute does not apply
Key subsections	(A)(1) wire/electronic; (A)(2) oral; (A)(3) jury deliberations; (B) pen register / trap-and-trace	(A)(1) private-place + protected acts; (A)(2) upskirt or hidden angle; (B) disclosure offense; (C) exemptions
Classification	Class 5 felony (interception); Class 6 felony (pen register without authority)	Class 5 baseline; Class 6 secret view without device; Class 4 distribution where person recognizable
Civil floor	ARS § 12-731: $100/day or $10,000 minimum, plus actual, punitive, and attorney fees	No statutory floor; common-law intrusion plus ARS § 13-1425 NCII overlay where applicable
Limitations period	One-year discovery rule (ARS § 12-731)	Two years personal injury (ARS § 12-542)

Each downstream section of this article runs through this split. The penalty H2 keeps the ARS § 12-731 floor strictly tied to the audio side. The hidden-camera H2 walks the indoor / outdoor private-place lines under ARS § 13-3019. The federal overlay maintains the same audio focus.

ARS § 13-3005: Wiretap and Audio Interception

ARS § 13-3005 is Arizona's criminal wiretap statute. The text reads, in operative part:

"Except as provided in this chapter or chapter 30.1 of this title, a person is guilty of a class 5 felony who either: 1. Intentionally intercepts a wire or electronic communication to which he is not a party, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of either a sender or receiver thereof. 2. Intentionally intercepts a conversation or discussion at which he is not present, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of a party to such conversation or discussion. 3. Intentionally intercepts the deliberations of a jury or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do."

Read in plain English, the statute creates four prohibited acts.

Subsection (A)(1) (wire or electronic communication). Intentional interception of a wire or electronic communication to which the actor is not a party, without the consent of either the sender or the receiver, is a Class 5 felony. This reaches phone calls, voice-over-IP audio, text-message contents (insofar as captured aurally), and fax. Aiding, authorizing, employing, procuring, or permitting another to commit the interception carries the same exposure.

Subsection (A)(2) (oral conversation). Intentional interception of a conversation or discussion at which the actor is not present, without the consent of a party, is a Class 5 felony. This is the in-person audio prong. The "at which he is not present" language is what makes the present-witness consent rule in ARS § 13-3012(9) so consequential: a person physically present during a conversation is not within (A)(2)'s "not present" criminal predicate, and that same person can also consent for someone else to record.

Subsection (A)(3) (jury deliberations). Intentional interception of jury deliberations is a Class 5 felony, full stop. There is no participant-consent or present-witness exception that reaches a juror.

Subsection (B) (pen register or trap-and-trace). Installation of a pen register or trap-and-trace device without lawful authority is a Class 6 felony.

ARS § 13-3001 definitions

ARS § 13-3001 supplies the controlling vocabulary. A "wire communication" is any aural transfer made through wire, cable, or other connection. An "oral communication" is a spoken communication uttered by a person who exhibits an expectation that it is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying the expectation, a Katz-style reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test imported into the statutory definition. An "electronic communication" is any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence transmitted by wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photooptical system. "Intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of contents through any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

The "oral communication" definition is the heart of the audio side. A conversation in a public place, in earshot of strangers, may not satisfy the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy element at all, putting the conversation outside ARS § 13-3005's reach as an "oral communication." A conversation in a closed home office, a private restroom, or a closed-door medical exam room satisfies the definition. The criminal exposure under (A)(2) attaches to interception "at which the actor is not present."

ARS § 13-3012(9): the broad one-party consent exception

ARS § 13-3012 contains fourteen statutory exceptions to ARS § 13-3005 liability. Subsection (9) is the one-party consent exception. The text reads:

"The interception of any wire, electronic or oral communication by any person, if the interception is effected with the consent of a party to the communication or a person who is present during the communication."

The "or a person who is present during the communication" language is what makes Arizona's one-party rule broader than the federal one-party rule under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). Federal law authorizes interception by, or with the consent of, "a person acting under color of law" or "a party to the communication or one of the parties." Arizona expressly extends authorization to a non-participant who is physically present and witnessing the conversation.

The practical consequence: an Arizona resident who walks into a kitchen, hears two roommates discussing a verbal agreement, and pulls out a phone to record the rest of the conversation is acting lawfully under ARS § 13-3012(9) even if neither roommate "consents" in the conventional sense. The statute treats physical presence as a categorical authorization. This is one of the article's competitive moats: many secondary sources blur ARS § 13-3012(9) into a generic "one-party consent" line and lose the present-witness expansion entirely.

What is and is not within ARS § 13-3005

A few common scenarios:

• A salesperson recording a phone call with a customer. Lawful. The salesperson is a party. No notice required (subject to interstate-call rules below).
• A roommate recording a conversation between two other roommates from another room. Unlawful under (A)(2) unless the roommate is "present during the communication" (in earshot of the conversation as a non-participant witness). Walking into the next room and pulling out a phone is the line.
• A jealous spouse who plants a hidden microphone in the marital bedroom while away. Unlawful under (A)(2). The spouse is not present and there is no party-consent. Class 5 felony exposure plus ARS § 12-731 civil floor.
• A debt collector recording a call to an Arizona debtor. Lawful as to Arizona under (A)(1) plus § 13-3012(9). Federal CFPB Regulation F call-recording disclosure rules layer on separately.
• A juror who records the jury room. Unlawful under (A)(3). No exception applies.

ARS § 13-3019: Surreptitious Photographing, Videotaping, and Digital Recording

ARS § 13-3019 is Arizona's voyeurism and invasive-visual-recording statute. The text reads, in operative part:

"It is unlawful to knowingly photograph, videotape, film, digitally record or by any other means secretly view, with or without a device, another person without that person's consent under either of the following circumstances: 1. In a restroom, bathroom, locker room, bedroom or other location where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and the person is urinating, defecating, dressing, undressing, nude or involved in sexual intercourse or sexual contact. 2. In a manner that directly or indirectly captures or allows the viewing of the person's genitalia, buttock or female breast, whether clothed or unclothed, that is not otherwise visible to the public."

The statute is a private-place voyeurism rule plus an upskirt or hidden-angle prong. It is not a generic all-party consent rule for video.

Subsection (A)(1): private place plus protected act

Subsection (A)(1) is keyed to two simultaneous elements: a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy location AND a protected act. The named locations are restrooms, bathrooms, locker rooms, and bedrooms. The "other location" catch-all extends the rule to any setting where the depicted person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The protected acts are urinating, defecating, dressing, undressing, being nude, sexual contact, and sexual intercourse.

Both elements must be present. A photo of a person fully clothed at a kitchen table is outside (A)(1) even if the kitchen is a private place: there is no protected act. A photo of a person clothed in a swimsuit on a public beach is outside (A)(1) even if dressing or undressing in a swimsuit could arguably qualify: a public beach is not a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy location.

Subsection (A)(2): the upskirt or hidden-angle prong

Subsection (A)(2) does not require a private place at all. It targets capture or viewing in a manner that directly or indirectly captures the person's genitalia, buttock, or female breast (whether clothed or unclothed) that is not otherwise visible to the public. The classic application is upskirt photography in a public crowd or up-the-stairs hidden-angle imagery. The statute reaches the technique, not the location.

Subsection (B): the disclosure offense

Subsection (B) makes it unlawful to disclose, display, distribute, or publish a photograph, videotape, film, or digital recording made in violation of subsection (A) without the consent or knowledge of the depicted person. Distribution where the depicted person is recognizable is a Class 4 felony. The disclosure offense is the most serious felony exposure under the statute.

Subsection (E): classification matrix

Standard violations of subsection (A)(1) or (A)(2) using a recording device are Class 5 felonies. Secretly viewing without a recording device is a Class 6 felony. A second offense of secret viewing without a device is a Class 5 felony. Distribution under subsection (B) where the person is recognizable is a Class 4 felony.

Conduct	Classification
Capture in private place during protected act, § 13-3019(A)(1)	Class 5 felony
Upskirt / hidden-angle capture, § 13-3019(A)(2)	Class 5 felony
Secret viewing without a device	Class 6 felony
Second-offense secret viewing without device	Class 5 felony
Distribution where depicted person is recognizable, § 13-3019(B)	Class 4 felony

Subsection (C): the enumerated exemptions

Subsection (C) carves out four classes of conduct from the statute:

1. Posted-notice security recording. The statute does not apply where notice of photographing, videotaping, filming, or digital recording equipment is clearly posted in the location and the recording is for security purposes. The exemption requires both clear posting and a security purpose. An unlabeled hidden camera running for non-security reasons does not qualify.
2. Law-enforcement investigation. Recording by law-enforcement officers conducting an investigation is exempt.
3. Correctional facility. Recording by correctional officials in their official capacity is exempt.
4. Child monitoring device. A "child monitoring device" as defined in ARS § 13-3001 used by a parent or guardian inside the home is exempt. This is the in-home parental-monitoring carve-out for nursery cameras and similar devices.

The boundary cases run through what counts as a security purpose and whether the notice is genuinely posted. A landlord who installs an unlabeled bathroom camera and later claims a security rationale will not satisfy (C). Arizona courts treat the exemption narrowly: both the posting and the purpose elements must be met.

What is and is not within ARS § 13-3019

• A husband who installs a hidden camera in the marital bathroom and films his wife showering. Class 5 felony under (A)(1). Distribution in a recognizable manner upgrades to Class 4 under (B).
• A landlord who installs a security camera in a hallway covering the doors of multiple tenants, with a clearly posted notice. Within (C)'s posted-notice security exemption.
• An apartment owner who installs an unlabeled camera inside a tenant's bedroom. Class 5 felony under (A)(1). The posted-notice exemption does not apply.
• A patron who captures upskirt footage in a department store. Class 5 felony under (A)(2).
• A parent who installs a nursery camera in their own child's bedroom in their own home. Within (C)'s child-monitoring-device exemption.
• A bystander who films a nude man running through a city park. Outside ARS § 13-3019. The man is in a public park, which is not a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy location, and the bystander did not capture intimate body parts not otherwise visible to the public. Other statutes (harassment, stalking, indecent exposure as to the man) may still apply.

The legislative architecture is a private-place voyeurism statute, not a generic all-party video consent rule. The page treats it that way throughout.

What Counts as a "Private Place" Under ARS § 13-3019?

Subsection (A)(1) names restrooms, bathrooms, locker rooms, and bedrooms as the paradigmatic private places, plus any "other location" where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The reasonable-expectation analysis is a fact-specific inquiry that uses Katz-style logic familiar from Fourth Amendment cases.

Settings that generally fit the private-place spine include:

• The interior of a residence
• A hotel or motel room
• A doctor's exam room
• A gym shower room or changing room
• A retail dressing room
• A spa or massage-therapy room

Settings that generally do not fit include:

• A public sidewalk or street
• A restaurant dining room
• A retail floor or store aisle
• A public park or parking lot
• A government building's public lobby
• A public schoolyard or athletic field

The classification can shift with the facts. A hotel pool deck used by other guests is not a private place. A hotel pool deck reserved for a single guest's private cabana booking is closer. A gym shower room is private; the gym lobby is not. The closer the case, the more important the reasonable-expectation question becomes.

The (A)(2) upskirt prong has a different geometry. It does not require a private place at all. A patron who captures intimate body parts not otherwise visible to the public on a crowded public sidewalk violates (A)(2) even though the sidewalk is not a private place.

A practical clarification: audio captured along with the video is analyzed separately under ARS § 13-3005 with the ARS § 13-3012(9) consent rule. A homeowner with a kitchen camera who records family meals captures audio that is governed by the audio statute. A guest's audio recorded in a guest bedroom without participation or presence implicates ARS § 13-3005 even if the video itself does not violate ARS § 13-3019.

Penalties: Felony Classifications and Civil Damages

Criminal exposure under ARS § 13-3005 and ARS § 13-3019 runs through ARS § 13-702, Arizona's presumptive sentencing schedule for non-dangerous felonies committed by a first-time offender. The presumptive sentence is the court's default; mitigated and aggravated sentences are available on enumerated factors under ARS § 13-701.

Conduct	Classification	Mitigated	Presumptive	Aggravated
Audio interception, § 13-3005(A)(1) and (A)(2)	Class 5 felony	0.5 years	1.5 years	2.5 years
Jury deliberations, § 13-3005(A)(3)	Class 5 felony	0.5 years	1.5 years	2.5 years
Pen register / trap-and-trace, § 13-3005(B)	Class 6 felony	0.33 years	1 year	2 years
Capture in private place or upskirt, § 13-3019(A)(1) and (A)(2)	Class 5 felony	0.5 years	1.5 years	2.5 years
Distribution where person recognizable, § 13-3019(B)	Class 4 felony	1 year	2.5 years	3.75 years
Secret viewing without a device, § 13-3019	Class 6 felony	0.33 years	1 year	2 years
NCII standard, § 13-1425	Class 5 felony	0.5 years	1.5 years	2.5 years
NCII electronic disclosure, § 13-1425	Class 4 felony	1 year	2.5 years	3.75 years
HB 2319 / § 13-3732 (8-foot police buffer)	Class 3 misdemeanor	Permanently enjoined; unenforceable	Permanently enjoined; unenforceable	Permanently enjoined; unenforceable

First-offense non-dangerous felony defendants are typically probation eligible. Repeat offenders with prior felony convictions face significant enhancements under ARS § 13-703 and § 13-704; repeat exposure on serious felony classifications can run several years above the aggravated baseline.

Civil remedy under ARS § 12-731 (audio only)

ARS § 12-731 creates a private right of action for ARS § 13-3005 violations only. The statute reads:

"A person whose wire, electronic or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of section 13-3005 may recover from the person or entity that engaged in the violation the following: 1. Either: (a) The actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation. (b) Statutory damages of one hundred dollars per day for each day of violation or ten thousand dollars, whichever is greater. 2. Punitive damages in appropriate cases. 3. Reasonable attorney fees and other reasonable costs of litigation."

The statute supplies the higher of (a) actual damages plus the violator's profits or (b) the statutory floor of $100 per day or $10,000 minimum. Punitive damages are available in appropriate cases. Reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs are recoverable. The limitations period is one year from when the plaintiff first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.

ARS § 12-731 does not create a civil floor for ARS § 13-3019 violations. The statute by its terms is keyed to ARS § 13-3005. A surreptitious-video plaintiff cannot recover the $100-per-day or $10,000 floor; they recover what the common-law tort and the NCII statute (where applicable) award.

Civil remedy for ARS § 13-3019 victims (common law plus NCII)

Surreptitious-video victims have two civil pathways. The first is the four common-law invasion-of-privacy branches Arizona recognizes under the Restatement (Second) of Torts: intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, false light, and appropriation of name or likeness. Hart v. Seven Resorts, Inc., 190 Ariz. 272 (App. 1997), and Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 162 Ariz. 335 (1989), are the foundational Arizona authorities. For surreptitious-video plaintiffs, intrusion upon seclusion is the primary tort: a defendant who intentionally intrudes on the solitude or seclusion of another, in a manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, is liable for damages.

Punitive damages in Arizona invasion-of-privacy cases require clear-and-convincing evidence of an "evil mind" under Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co., 150 Ariz. 326 (1986). The personal-injury limitations period is two years under ARS § 12-542, longer than the one-year discovery rule attached to ARS § 12-731.

The second pathway is the NCII overlay. ARS § 13-1425 (unauthorized disclosure of intimate images) creates criminal exposure that can support civil derivative liability when the depicted material is nudity or sexual activity disclosed with intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce. The text reads:

"It is unlawful for a person to intentionally disclose an image of another person who is identifiable from the image itself or from information displayed in connection with the image if all of the following apply: 1. The person in the image is depicted in a state of nudity or is engaged in specific sexual activities. 2. The depicted person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. 3. The image is disclosed with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce the depicted person."

Standard NCII violations are Class 5 felonies; electronic disclosure is a Class 4 felony. Statutory exemptions cover law-enforcement reporting, criminal investigations, legal proceedings, medical treatment, and voluntary public or commercial exposure. For unauthorized takedowns of intimate or copyrighted material, see the DMCA Takedown Notice Generator.

Recording Phone Calls in Arizona (Including Interstate Calls)

A caller in Arizona who is a party to a phone call may record the audio under ARS § 13-3005 with the ARS § 13-3012(9) exception, without notifying the other party. The complication is the interstate call.

When the other party is in a state that requires all-party consent for the audio of a call, the conservative posture is to comply with the stricter regime: ask for consent on the record before recording. The all-party (or functional all-party) jurisdictions that recordinglaw.com tracks include:

• California (Cal. Penal Code § 632)
• Florida (Fla. Stat. § 934.03)
• Illinois (720 ILCS 5/14-2)
• Maryland (Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 10-402)
• Massachusetts (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, § 99)
• Montana (Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-213)
• New Hampshire (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 570-A:2)
• Oregon (Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.540, with the in-person carve-out)
• Pennsylvania (18 Pa. C.S. § 5704)
• Washington (Wash. Rev. Code § 9.73.030)

Federal one-party consent under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) sets the floor. The more protective state law typically governs the actor in question. Arizona courts are most likely to apply Arizona's rule when the Arizona resident is the recorder; the all-party state's courts may be most likely to apply the all-party rule when one of its residents is the recorder. Snowbird and business calls between Arizona and California or Florida are the most common interstate trap. If the line crosses state lines and either side is in an all-party state, assume two-party rules apply.

For the canonical state-by-state list of strict regimes, see two-party consent states.

Business call recording

Arizona businesses can record calls for quality assurance, training, or compliance purposes consistent with ARS § 13-3005 and § 13-3012(9) when the business is a party. Best practice is a recorded preamble at the start of the call ("This call may be recorded for quality assurance and training purposes") because customers often call from all-party-consent states. A recorded preamble that the caller can decline by hanging up is the cleanest implied-consent posture. Federal Communications Commission TCPA and CFPB Regulation F call-recording disclosures layer on separately for telemarketing and debt-collection contexts.

Hidden Cameras, Doorbells, Nanny Cams, and Dashcams

Hidden-camera, doorbell-camera, nanny-cam, and dashcam scenarios run through ARS § 13-3019 (private-place voyeurism) and ARS § 13-3005 (audio one-party). The two analyses are independent.

Outward-facing Ring doorbell on the homeowner's own porch

A standard outward-facing Ring doorbell pointing at the homeowner's own front porch is generally outside ARS § 13-3019. A public-facing porch is not a private place under (A)(1) and visitors there are not in a state of nudity or intimate activity. The (A)(2) upskirt prong does not apply. The audio side under ARS § 13-3005 typically fits within § 13-3012(9): the homeowner is a participant or present witness in conversations on their own porch.

Indoor camera in a private space of guests, tenants, or domestic workers

Indoor cameras placed in private spaces of guests, tenants, or domestic workers (bathrooms, guest bedrooms, dressing areas) without consent run squarely into ARS § 13-3019. Capturing those spaces during nudity or intimate activity is a Class 5 felony under (A)(1). Distribution where the person is recognizable is a Class 4 felony under (B). Audio captured inside those spaces without a participant's or present-witness consent additionally implicates ARS § 13-3005.

The (C) posted-notice security exemption requires both clearly posted notice of the recording equipment and a security purpose. An unlabeled hidden camera in a guest bathroom is not within (C). A clearly labeled security camera covering an apartment building's hallway is within (C).

Nanny cam in a shared family room

A nanny cam in a shared family room or kitchen of the homeowner's own home is generally outside ARS § 13-3019: a kitchen used in common is not a private place under (A)(1) and the protected-act element is not met. A nanny cam pointed at the nanny's own private quarters in the home, by contrast, is within (A)(1) and exposes the homeowner to felony liability.

Dashcam (inside and outside the vehicle)

Public roadways are not private places under ARS § 13-3019, so video of the road and other vehicles is outside the statute. Cabin-facing audio captured by a dashcam follows ARS § 13-3005 with the § 13-3012(9) exception. The driver is typically a participant or present witness in any in-vehicle conversation, putting most rideshare and personal-vehicle dashcam audio within the one-party rule. A passenger who later requests the recording be deleted does not change the historical lawfulness of the recording; the recording was lawful when made.

FTC vendor-data layer

A separate compliance layer applies to surveillance vendors that store or review your video at a cloud data center. The FTC's 2023 enforcement action against Ring (Amazon Ring LLC) resulted in a $5.8 million settlement over allegations that Ring allowed employee and contractor access to customer videos and used them to train algorithms without express consent. The stipulated order requires limited human review of videos absent express informed consent. Arizona households with cloud-camera vendors and Arizona employers using third-party video-monitoring vendors face an FTC Act Section 5 layer that can apply even where Arizona recording law would permit the recording itself.

For the deeper national treatment of video-without-consent, see Is it illegal to video record someone without their consent. For a focused look at Arizona surveillance-camera questions, see Arizona surveillance camera laws.

Recording at Work: Employee and Employer Rules in Arizona

An Arizona employer who is a party to a workplace audio conversation may record without notifying the other party under ARS § 13-3005 and the ARS § 13-3012(9) one-party-or-present-witness exception. Video recording inside private workplace spaces (restrooms, locker rooms, dressing areas) is restricted under ARS § 13-3019. Federal labor law adds a further constraint for employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act.

NLRB Stericycle: blanket no-recording rules

The NLRB held in Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), that to defend a no-recording or no-photography rule against a Section 8(a)(1) facial challenge, the employer must show the rule advances a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a more narrowly tailored rule. Blanket no-recording handbook policies are presumptively unlawful for private-sector employers covered by the NLRA. Arizona's right-to-work status under Ariz. Const. art. XXV does not exempt Arizona employers from NLRA Section 7 protected concerted activity standards.

NLRB GC 25-05: Boeing-era enforcement priorities reinstated

NLRB Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued GC 25-05 on February 14, 2025, rescinding numerous Biden-era General Counsel memoranda and reinstating Boeing-era enforcement priorities. GC 25-05 narrows enforcement priorities, but Stericycle remains binding Board precedent until the Board itself overrules it. The change is at the prosecutorial level, not the precedent level.

NLRB GC 25-07: surreptitious bargaining-session recording

Cowen also issued GC 25-07 on June 25, 2025, treating surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se violation of NLRA Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3). The memo is narrow prosecutorial guidance directed at the bargaining-session context. It is not a broader Stericycle clarification and does not address general workplace recording outside formal bargaining. Routine workplace conversations, employee-on-employee recordings, and unilateral employee documentation of suspected unfair labor practices are governed by Stericycle and the broader Section 7 framework, not by GC 25-07.

Employee recordings in Arizona

Employee audio recording of a workplace conversation in which the employee is a participant is permitted under ARS § 13-3005 with § 13-3012(9), regardless of an employer no-recording handbook policy. The Stericycle framework analyzes the handbook rule itself; the employee's act of recording is independently lawful under Arizona criminal law. Whether the employer can discipline the employee for breaking the (potentially unlawful) policy is an NLRB question, not an Arizona criminal question.

For a deeper national treatment, see Can an employer record conversations without consent.

Recording Police, Public Officials, and HB 2319

Arizona is in the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit recognized in Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), a First Amendment interest in audio and video recording of police officers performing public duties during a public demonstration. The court reinstated First Amendment interference and assault claims against an officer who interfered with such recording.

The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed and extended that right in Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018), holding that the First Amendment protects the right to photograph and record matters of public interest in public places, which includes the right to record law-enforcement officers performing their official duties in public. The Askins panel applied the right to a U.S.-Mexico land port-of-entry where the plaintiffs were detained for photographing CBP officers conducting inspections. Together, Fordyce and Askins are the controlling Ninth Circuit pair for Arizona.

The reasonable-time-place-and-manner overlay still applies. Officers can lawfully order a bystander to step back to a reasonable distance, can prevent physical interference with operations, and can enforce trespass and obstruction laws of general applicability. What officers cannot do is forbid recording itself, or arrest a recorder solely for the act of recording.

HB 2319 / ARS § 13-3732: permanently enjoined and unenforceable

In 2022, Arizona passed HB 2319, codified at ARS § 13-3732, making it a Class 3 misdemeanor to knowingly make a video recording of law-enforcement activity within 8 feet of an officer after a verbal warning. A coalition of news organizations and the ACLU of Arizona challenged the statute in federal court before its effective date.

The procedural posture: the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona entered a preliminary injunction on September 9, 2022. The case then proceeded to a stipulated permanent injunction and declaratory judgment in Arizona Broadcasters Association v. Mayes, No. 2:22-cv-01431-JJT (D. Ariz. July 21, 2023) (Tuchi, J.). The State of Arizona declined to defend the statute and did not appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

The framing matters. ARS § 13-3732 was permanently enjoined by stipulated injunction and declaratory judgment at the District Court level. The State agreed not to enforce the statute, and the court entered the parties' stipulated order. The procedural posture is a stipulated permanent injunction, not a published merits opinion or a Ninth Circuit appellate decision. The statute remains technically on the books but is unenforceable as a matter of binding court order.

Recording officers in Arizona public places remains protected under Fordyce and Askins, subject to the reasonable-time-place-and-manner overlay. Practical limits still apply: do not physically interfere with police operations, do not trespass to get a better angle, follow lawful orders to step back to a reasonable distance, and do not obstruct an investigation.

Body-worn camera framework

Arizona's peace-officer body-worn camera framework was enacted by SB 1386 (55th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess., 2022) and is codified at ARS § 38-1171 (definitions) and ARS § 38-1172 (peace officer body-worn camera and incident-recording requirements). The body-cam statute imposes operational requirements, including activation in defined enforcement situations and continuous recording during certain interactions, with AZ POST certification consequences for tampering or non-activation. Suspension of certification for at least one year is available for violations; permanent revocation is available where a covered officer's failure to record contributed to an incident resulting in civilian death.

State-agency video disclosure, consent, redaction, and fee rules are governed by ARS § 41-1734. The disclosure framework requires redaction of identifying information of victims, witnesses, and uncharged third parties and authorizes fees for the technical work of redaction and copying.

The earlier baseline citations to ARS § 12-2407 and ARS § 38-1116 are not the body-cam framework. ARS § 38-1116 is part of the Officer Bill of Rights, addressing peace-officer disciplinary protections, not body-cam disclosure. This page corrects the record.

Public meetings and court hearings

Arizona's Open Meeting Law, ARS § 38-431.01, guarantees public access to meetings of state and local public bodies and requires public bodies to provide minutes or recordings within three working days. Public attendees may record open meetings, subject to reasonable rules of decorum. The rule extends to city and county council meetings, school board meetings, public hearings, and meetings of any other body subject to the statute.

Court hearings have separate access rules. Most Arizona trial courts permit cameras and audio recording subject to advance application under the Arizona Supreme Court Rule 122 and the local court's rules. Federal court in Arizona generally bars cameras in courtrooms during proceedings.

Federal Overlay: ECPA, FCC, and DOJ Rules

The federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 to 2522, sets a one-party-consent floor under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d). Arizona is permitted to and does follow that one-party rule for audio under ARS § 13-3005 with ARS § 13-3012(9). Federal courts in Arizona may apply ECPA in parallel to state law, and the more protective rule typically governs the actor in question.

FCC 24-17: AI-generated voice (in force)

The FCC adopted Declaratory Ruling FCC 24-17 on February 2, 2024 (released February 8, 2024), clarifying that AI-generated voice in calls qualifies as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and requires prior express consent. The ruling is current with no vacatur or rescission as of May 2026. An Arizona consumer who receives an AI-cloned-voice scam call has a federal TCPA cause of action and may, as a participant, record the call under both federal one-party consent and Arizona one-party consent.

FCC 24-24: One-to-One Consent Rule (vacated)

The FCC's One-to-One Consent Rule (FCC 24-24, amending 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(f)(9)) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir.). The mandate issued April 30, 2025. The FCC then formally removed the revised rule by order DA 25-621 and reinstated the prior version of § 64.1200(f)(9). The rule is not in force as of May 2026. Although the vacatur came from the 11th Circuit, it set aside the FCC rule and applies nationally, including to Arizona. Do not confuse FCC 24-24 (vacated) with FCC 24-17 (in force).

A separate housekeeping point: 47 C.F.R. § 64.501 was removed effective November 20, 2017, and is not a live regulation. Older legal-information summaries that cite § 64.501 as supporting a "beep tone" or related call-monitoring rule are out of date.

DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302

DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302 sets the federal default for warrantless consensual monitoring: federal agents may record with the consent of one party to the conversation, subject to internal-approval rules for sensitive cases involving Members of Congress, attorney-client situations, or members of the news media. In Arizona federal investigations, the federal one-party default mirrors Arizona's ARS § 13-3005 audio rule.

CALEA, HIPAA, and CFPB Regulation F

Sectoral overlays apply in specific contexts. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 1001 to 1010, imposes intercept-capability requirements on telecommunications carriers and broadband providers serving Arizona. CALEA does not change the consent standard for individual recording; it is relevant only as background to law-enforcement-side electronic surveillance. HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules, 45 C.F.R. Part 164, apply to Arizona healthcare providers, plans, and clearinghouses; recording of protected health information implicates 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.502 and 164.530. HIPAA does not preempt Arizona's one-party consent rule for patient-side recording but constrains provider-side recording and disclosure. CFPB Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. § 1006.6, governs debt-collector call-recording disclosures alongside the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. Arizona consumers may record their own debt-collection calls under ARS § 13-3005 one-party consent.

Deepfakes, AI Voice, and NCII (Arizona)

Arizona enacted two AI deepfake laws in 2024. Both are signed and in force.

HB 2394 (ARS § 16-1023): civil digital impersonation action

HB 2394 (56th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess., 2024), codified at ARS § 16-1023, was signed by Governor Katie Hobbs on May 21, 2024. The statute creates a civil cause of action for digital impersonation. Any Arizona citizen, with enhanced injunctive remedies for political candidates, may sue a publisher of a digital impersonation that was published without the depicted person's consent and that does not contain a clear disclosure that it is a digital impersonation.

Liability requires either actual knowledge that the content is a digital impersonation or failure to take corrective action within 21 days of gaining such knowledge (the "21-day cure window"). Remedies include declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages. Expedited preliminary injunctive relief is available where the plaintiff is a candidate appearing on the ballot within 180 days, where the deepfake depicts the person unclothed or engaged in sexual or criminal acts, or where reputational or financial harm is reasonably anticipated. The limitations period is two years.

SB 1359: election deepfake disclosure within 90 days

SB 1359 (56th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess., 2024) was signed by Governor Hobbs on May 29, 2024. Within 90 days of an election, any person who creates and distributes a deepfake depicting a candidate on the ballot must include a clear and conspicuous disclosure that the media contains content created by artificial intelligence. The civil penalty schedule is $10 per day for the first 15 days of non-disclosure and $25 per day thereafter.

SB 1078: not enacted

SB 1078 of the same session, which would have added felony AI-criminal-impersonation provisions to ARS § 13-2006, failed concurrence in the Senate before sine die and is not enacted Arizona law. References in older legal-information summaries that treat SB 1078 as enacted should be disregarded.

ARS § 13-1425 NCII overlay

Arizona's primary non-consensual intimate imagery statute, ARS § 13-1425, continues to apply alongside the AI laws. ARS § 13-1425 makes it a Class 5 felony to intentionally disclose an image of another identifiable person depicted in a state of nudity or engaged in specific sexual activities, where the depicted person had a reasonable expectation of privacy, with intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce. Electronic disclosure is a Class 4 felony. For takedowns, see the DMCA Takedown Notice Generator.

Recent and Federal Developments (2024 to 2026)

Several federal and Arizona developments shape recording law in 2024 through 2026.

Federal

• TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12, S. 146, 119th Cong.): signed federally on May 19, 2025. The Act establishes a federal criminal prohibition on knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI-generated digital forgeries. The criminal provisions took effect on the signing date. Covered platforms must implement a notice-and-takedown procedure with a 48-hour response window; platform compliance takes effect May 19, 2026. Arizona victims of NCII or deepfake recording can invoke the federal notice-and-takedown procedure as of that date alongside ARS § 13-3019 and ARS § 13-1425. Bill text at congress.gov.
• FCC 24-17 (February 2024): AI-generated voice in calls qualifies as artificial or prerecorded voice under the TCPA. In force.
• FCC 24-24 vacatur: Eleventh Circuit vacated the One-to-One Consent Rule with mandate April 30, 2025. FCC removed the rule by order DA 25-621. Not in force.
• NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025): rescinded numerous Biden-era General Counsel memoranda and reinstated Boeing-era enforcement priorities. Stericycle remains binding precedent.
• NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025): treats surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as per se unlawful. Tier 2 prosecutorial guidance, not Stericycle clarification.
• FTC v. Ring (2023): $5.8 million settlement over employee and contractor access to customer videos. Stipulated order limits human review absent express informed consent.

Arizona

• HB 2394 (ARS § 16-1023): enacted May 21, 2024. Civil digital impersonation action with 21-day cure window and two-year limitations period.
• SB 1359: enacted May 29, 2024. Election deepfake disclosure within 90 days; $10/day then $25/day civil penalty.
• SB 1078: failed concurrence; not enacted.
• SB 1386 (ARS §§ 38-1171, 38-1172, and 41-1734): peace-officer body-worn camera framework; in force since 2022.

Arizona Recording Laws: Topic Index

Arizona recording law touches on many specific contexts. The following pages provide deeper coverage of the major subtopics.

• United States recording laws: The federal hub, including ECPA and FCC overlays.
• One-party consent states: The full list of jurisdictions that share Arizona's audio one-party rule.
• Two-party consent states: The all-party states whose laws can govern an interstate call into Arizona.
• Can an employer record conversations without consent: The national workplace-recording standalone with the full Stericycle and GC 25-07 treatment.
• Is it illegal to video record someone without their consent: The video-without-consent doctrine for hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams beyond Arizona.
• Arizona surveillance camera laws: The deeper Arizona-specific surveillance treatment, including ARS § 13-3019 application to security cameras.
• DMCA Takedown Notice Generator: A free tool to generate takedown notices for non-consensual intimate imagery and copyrighted material.

Legal Information Disclaimer: This page is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Arizona recording law, including ARS §§ 13-3005, 13-3019, 13-3012, 12-731, 13-1425, 16-1023, and the body-camera framework at ARS §§ 38-1171, 38-1172, and 41-1734, is fact-specific. Federal developments (TAKE IT DOWN Act, FCC actions, NLRB guidance) and any post-publication Arizona legislation may change the framework. If you face a specific legal situation involving recording in Arizona, consult a licensed Arizona attorney.

Related Articles

• United States recording laws
• One-party consent states
• Two-party consent states
• Can an employer record conversations without consent
• Is it illegal to video record someone without their consent
• Arizona surveillance camera laws
• DMCA Takedown Notice Generator

Last updated: 2026-05-09. Statutes cited reflect their in-force version as of 2026-05-09.