EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsArizona Laws flagArizona Laws
Arizona flag

Arizona

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

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of August 15, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed September 28, 202614 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 15, 2026. · 34 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

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

Arizona is a one-party consent state for audio under ARS § 13-3005 and ARS § 13-3012(9): a party to a conversation, or any person physically present during it, may record without notice. Secretly recording someone in a private place during nudity or intimate activity is a separate Class 5 felony under ARS § 13-3019. Violating either statute exposes you to felony criminal charges and significant civil liability.

Arizona recording law at a glance

QuestionAnswer
Consent ruleOne-party (ARS § 13-3005 + § 13-3012(9))
Main statuteARS § 13-3005 (audio); ARS § 13-3019 (video voyeurism)
When recording is illegalIntercepting audio you are not a party to and not present for; secretly filming someone in a private place during nudity/intimate activity, or upskirt capture
Criminal penalty (audio)Class 5 felony; pen register is Class 6 felony
Criminal penalty (video)Class 5 baseline; Class 6 secret view without device; Class 4 distribution where person recognizable
Civil remedyARS § 12-731: $100/day or $10,000 minimum, plus actual, punitive, and attorney fees (audio only)
Hidden camerasRestricted under ARS § 13-3019 in private-expectation locations during protected acts
Recording policeProtected in public under Fordyce + Askins; 8-foot buffer law enjoined by a federal court

For deeper coverage of every subtopic, see the Arizona recording laws in-depth index below.

Recording in-person conversations in Arizona

Arizona over-the-shoulder crop of two people seated across a small table mid-conversation, seen from behind one shoulder so no faces visible

Arizona's one-party rule comes from two statutes read together. ARS § 13-3005(A)(2) makes it a Class 5 felony to intentionally intercept a conversation "at which he is not present" without the consent of a party. The flip side is ARS § 13-3012(9), which carves out an exception for any interception "effected with the consent of a party to the communication or a person who is present during the communication."

Together these provisions mean: if you are a party to the conversation, or if you are physically present while it occurs, you may record it under Arizona law without telling anyone else. The "or a person who is present during the communication" language makes Arizona's rule broader than the federal one-party standard under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), which permits recording only where a party consents: either the person recording is a party, or one of the parties has given prior consent.

A practical example: if you walk into a kitchen and hear two roommates discussing a verbal agreement, you can pull out your phone and record the rest of the conversation under ARS § 13-3012(9), even though you were not originally part of it and neither roommate consents. That same logic does not apply if you record from the next room with a listening device: you are not "present," and (A)(2) applies.

The "oral communication" definition in ARS § 13-3001 requires a reasonable expectation of privacy (a Katz-style test). A conversation shouted across a busy sidewalk may not qualify as an "oral communication" at all, putting it outside ARS § 13-3005's reach entirely.

Recording phone calls in Arizona

ARS § 13-3005(A)(1) covers wire and electronic communications: intentional interception of a call "to which he is not a party" without consent of sender or receiver is a Class 5 felony. As a party to your own calls, you may record under the ARS § 13-3012(9) exception without notice.

The complication is interstate calls. When the other party is in a stricter all-party-consent state (California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, or Washington), the conservative posture is to comply with the stricter state and obtain on-record consent before recording. Arizona courts apply Arizona law to Arizona residents; the other state's courts may apply their own rule to their residents.

Businesses recording Arizona calls for quality assurance or compliance are parties to those calls and may record under ARS § 13-3005. Best practice is a recorded preamble noting that the call may be recorded, because many callers connect from all-party states. Federal CFPB Regulation F and FCC TCPA rules layer on separately for debt-collection and telemarketing contexts.

For the complete guide to phone recording, see Arizona Phone Call Recording Laws.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Arizona dome security camera in the corner of an office ceiling, soft interior daylight

Hidden-camera questions run through ARS § 13-3019, Arizona's voyeurism statute. The statute creates two separate prongs.

Subsection (A)(1): private place plus protected act. It is unlawful to secretly photograph, videotape, film, or digitally record another person in a restroom, bathroom, locker room, bedroom, or any other location where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, while the person is urinating, defecating, dressing, undressing, nude, or engaged in sexual contact or intercourse. Both elements must be present: the location and the act.

Subsection (A)(2): upskirt and hidden-angle capture. No private place is required. Capture of another person's genitalia, buttock, or female breast (whether clothed or unclothed) that is not otherwise visible to the public is prohibited regardless of where it occurs.

Subsection (B): distribution. Disclosing, displaying, distributing, or publishing a recording made in violation of (A) without the depicted person's consent is a separate offense. Where the depicted person is recognizable, distribution is a Class 4 felony, the most serious classification in the statute.

Subsection (C) exemptions. Four categories are carved out: security recordings where notice is clearly posted in the location and the purpose is security; correctional officials recording for security reasons or in connection with the investigation of alleged misconduct of persons on the premises of a jail or prison; law-enforcement recordings during lawful investigations; and child monitoring devices (as defined in ARS § 13-3001) used by a parent or guardian inside the home. The posted-notice exemption requires both elements; an unlabeled bathroom camera with a retroactive security rationale does not qualify.

A few common scenarios: an outward-facing doorbell camera on your own porch is generally outside ARS § 13-3019 (a public-facing porch is not a private place and visitors are not in a protected act). A nanny cam in a shared kitchen or family room is similarly outside the statute. A camera installed in a tenant's bathroom or a guest bedroom without consent is a Class 5 felony. A parent's nursery cam in their child's own bedroom fits within the child-monitoring-device exemption.

Audio captured by any camera is analyzed separately under ARS § 13-3005 with the one-party consent rule.

For more on this topic, see Arizona Video Recording Laws, Arizona Security Camera Laws, and Arizona Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws.

Penalties for illegal recording in Arizona

Arizona clip-on lavalier microphone attached to a jacket lapel in tight close-up, shallow focus

Criminal sentences run through ARS § 13-702, the presumptive sentencing schedule for non-dangerous felonies committed by first-time offenders.

ConductClassPresumptiveAggravated
Audio interception, ARS § 13-3005(A)(1)-(2)Class 5 felony1.5 years2.5 years
Jury deliberations, ARS § 13-3005(A)(3)Class 5 felony1.5 years2.5 years
Pen register / trap-and-trace, ARS § 13-3005(B)Class 6 felony1 year2 years
Capture in private place or upskirt, ARS § 13-3019(A)Class 5 felony1.5 years2.5 years
Distribution where person recognizable, ARS § 13-3019(B)Class 4 felony2.5 years3.75 years
Distribution where person not recognizable, ARS § 13-3019(B)Class 5 felony1.5 years2.5 years
Secret viewing without a device, ARS § 13-3019(E)Class 6 felony1 year2 years
Secret viewing without a device (second offense), ARS § 13-3019(E)Class 5 felony1.5 years2.5 years
NCII, ARS § 13-1425 (standard)Class 5 felony1.5 years2.5 years
NCII, ARS § 13-1425 (electronic disclosure)Class 4 felony2.5 years3.75 years

First-time non-dangerous offenders are generally probation eligible. Repeat offenders face significant enhancements under ARS § 13-703.

Civil remedy for audio violations (ARS § 12-731). ARS § 12-731 creates a private right of action for violations of ARS § 13-3005. A plaintiff may recover the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits, or $100 per day of violation, or $10,000, whichever is greater. 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 had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation.

Civil remedy for video violations. ARS § 12-731 does not cover ARS § 13-3019 violations. Surreptitious-video plaintiffs rely on common-law intrusion upon seclusion, applied in Arizona in Hart v. Seven Resorts, Inc., 190 Ariz. 272 (App. 1997). Punitive damages require clear-and-convincing evidence of an "evil mind" under Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Insurance Co., 150 Ariz. 326 (1986). The limitations period is two years under ARS § 12-542. Where the material is intimate imagery disclosed with intent to harm, ARS § 13-1425 adds criminal and civil exposure.

Recording the police in Arizona

Person in a grey hooded jacket seen from behind holding a phone up toward a wet city street with pedestrians

Arizona is in the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit recognized a First Amendment interest in recording police performing public duties in Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), and reaffirmed the right to photograph and record matters of public interest in public places (including law enforcement) in Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018). These remain the controlling authorities for Arizona.

Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions still apply. Officers may lawfully order bystanders to step back to a reasonable distance and may enforce trespass and obstruction laws of general applicability. What officers cannot do is forbid recording itself or arrest someone solely for recording.

HB 2319 / ARS § 13-3732 enjoined. Arizona passed HB 2319 in 2022 making it a Class 3 misdemeanor to record law enforcement within 8 feet after a verbal warning. A federal court entered a preliminary injunction before the law took effect. In Arizona Broadcasters Association v. Brnovich, No. CV-22-01431-PHX-JJT (D. Ariz. Sept. 9, 2022), the court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claim that HB 2319 is a content-based restriction on recording law enforcement that cannot withstand strict scrutiny, and it enjoined enforcement of ARS § 13-3732 pending further order.

Body-worn cameras. Arizona does not have a single statute setting statewide definitions or operational requirements for the peace officer body-worn camera program; individual departments set their own written policies. ARS § 38-1171 and ARS § 38-1172 are unrelated first-responder line-of-duty death benefit provisions, not body-camera statutes. State-agency video disclosure, redaction, and fee rules for the Arizona Department of Public Safety's own body-worn camera footage are governed by ARS § 41-1734; it does not extend to other Arizona law enforcement agencies.

For detailed coverage, see Arizona Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in Arizona

Deepfakes and AI impersonation

Arizona enacted two AI deepfake laws in 2024. HB 2394 (ARS § 16-1023), signed May 21, 2024, creates a civil cause of action for digital impersonation: any Arizona citizen may sue a publisher of a digital impersonation published without consent and without a clear disclosure, with a 21-day cure window and a two-year limitations period. The statute's expedited (2-day-ruling) track applies only to declaratory relief, available to candidates and to intimate/sexual depictions; injunctive relief and damages are a separate, harder remedy requiring additional proof (the depiction is intimate/sexual, appeals to prurient interests and offends community standards, the plaintiff is not a public figure, and actual knowledge or a failed cure) and is not expedited or available to candidates as such. SB 1359, signed May 29, 2024, requires clear and conspicuous AI disclosure on deepfakes of ballot candidates within 90 days of an election, with a $10/day then $25/day civil penalty. SB 1078 (AI criminal-impersonation amendment to ARS § 13-2006) failed to pass and is not enacted.

Non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII)

ARS § 13-1425 makes it a Class 5 felony (Class 4 for electronic disclosure) to intentionally disclose an identifiable intimate image of another person without consent and with intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) adds federal criminal liability for knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions including AI-generated forgeries; platform notice-and-takedown compliance took effect May 19, 2026.

Workplace recording and NLRB overlay

Arizona employers who are parties to workplace conversations may record under ARS § 13-3005 one-party consent. Blanket no-recording handbook policies are presumptively unlawful for private-sector NLRA-covered employers under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), unless the employer shows a substantial, narrowly tailored business interest. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) reinstated Boeing-era enforcement priorities but Stericycle remains binding Board precedent. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) separately treats surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se violation: this is narrow prosecutorial guidance confined to formal bargaining sessions, not a broader workplace-recording rule. Arizona's right-to-work status under Ariz. Const. art. XXV does not affect NLRA Section 7 analysis.

Federal ECPA and FCC overlay

The federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2522, sets a one-party-consent floor under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d); Arizona's ARS § 13-3005 follows it. FCC Declaratory Ruling FCC 24-17 (Feb. 2024) treats AI-generated voice in calls as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA and is in force. FCC 24-24 (One-to-One Consent Rule) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit with mandate April 30, 2025, and is not in force.

Open meetings and public records

Arizona's Open Meeting Law, ARS § 38-431.01, guarantees public access to meetings of state and local public bodies. Attendees may record open meetings subject to reasonable rules of decorum. Arizona trial courts permit cameras under Arizona Supreme Court Rule 122 subject to advance application. Federal courts in Arizona generally bar cameras during proceedings.

  • May 2024: HB 2394 (ARS § 16-1023) enacted, creating a civil deepfake-impersonation action with a 21-day cure window.
  • May 2024: SB 1359 enacted, requiring AI disclosure on election deepfakes within 90 days of a ballot; $10/day rising to $25/day civil penalty.
  • September 2022: In Arizona Broadcasters Ass'n v. Brnovich, D. Ariz., a federal court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of ARS § 13-3732 (HB 2319 8-foot police buffer), finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claim that it is a content-based restriction that cannot withstand strict scrutiny.
  • May 2025: TAKE IT DOWN Act signed federally (Pub. L. 119-12); platform notice-and-takedown compliance effective May 19, 2026.
  • April 2025: FCC 24-24 One-to-One Consent Rule vacated by 11th Circuit; FCC removed rule by order DA 25-621.
  • August 2023: NLRB Stericycle decision makes blanket no-recording workplace rules presumptively unlawful for NLRA-covered employers.

Arizona recording laws in depth

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Arizona 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 Arizona attorney.

More Arizona Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Arizona a one-party or two-party consent state?

Arizona is a one-party consent state for audio under ARS § 13-3005 and ARS § 13-3012(9). A party to a conversation, or any person physically present during it, may record without notifying anyone else. For video, ARS § 13-3019 restricts secret recording in private locations during nudity or intimate activity and upskirt-style capture, but Arizona is not a generic all-party state for video.

Can I record a phone call in Arizona without telling the other person?

Yes, if you are a party to the call and both parties are in Arizona. Under ARS § 13-3005 and ARS § 13-3012(9), no notice is required. If the other party is in an all-party-consent state such as California, Florida, or Pennsylvania, the conservative approach is to obtain consent before recording.

Is illegal recording a felony in Arizona?

Yes. Unlawful audio interception under ARS § 13-3005 is a Class 5 felony (presumptive 1.5 years). Secretly recording someone in a private place during nudity or intimate activity under ARS § 13-3019 is also a Class 5 felony. Distribution of such a recording where the person is recognizable is a Class 4 felony (presumptive 2.5 years).

What can I sue for if someone illegally recorded me in Arizona?

For audio violations, ARS § 12-731 provides a civil floor of $100 per day of violation or $10,000 minimum, plus actual damages, the violator's profits, punitive damages in appropriate cases, and attorney fees. For video violations under ARS § 13-3019, the civil path is common-law intrusion upon seclusion with a two-year limitations period under ARS § 12-542. ARS § 13-1425 adds criminal and civil exposure where intimate imagery is involved.

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in Arizona?

Generally yes for outward-facing cameras on your own property (public-facing porches are not private places under ARS § 13-3019). Nanny cams in shared common areas such as a kitchen are also generally outside the statute. Cameras placed in bathrooms, bedrooms, or other private-expectation spaces of guests, tenants, or workers without consent violate ARS § 13-3019. The posted-notice security exemption requires both clearly posted notice and a genuine security purpose.

Can I record my boss or an HR meeting in Arizona?

Yes, as a participant in the conversation. ARS § 13-3005 and ARS § 13-3012(9) authorize recording by any party or person present, regardless of an employer no-recording policy. Whether the employer can discipline you for breaking the policy is a separate question governed by NLRB doctrine under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (2023), which makes blanket no-recording rules presumptively unlawful for NLRA-covered employers.

Can I record police officers in Arizona?

Yes, openly and in public, under First Amendment protection established in Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), and Askins v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018). Arizona's 8-foot buffer law (HB 2319 / ARS § 13-3732) was preliminarily enjoined in Arizona Broadcasters Ass'n v. Brnovich (D. Ariz. Sept. 9, 2022), where the court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claim that the law is a content-based restriction that cannot withstand strict scrutiny, and enjoined its enforcement pending further order. Officers may still issue lawful orders to step back a reasonable distance.

What makes Arizona's one-party rule broader than federal law?

ARS § 13-3012(9) extends consent authority to 'a person who is present during the communication,' not just a party. The federal one-party rule under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) always runs through a party: the person recording must either be a party to the communication or have the prior consent of one of the parties. In Arizona, a non-participant who is physically present and witnessing a conversation may record it without either party's consent.

Updates

Corrected the description of the Arizona Broadcasters Association case to the September 2022 preliminary injunction order the court actually issued, which found the challengers likely to succeed and enjoined enforcement of ARS § 13-3732 pending further order.

Corrected the civil-remedy section, which had cited Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers (a false light invasion-of-privacy decision) as authority for intrusion upon seclusion; the tort is now attributed only to Hart v. Seven Resorts, which applies it.

Corrected the description of the federal wiretap rule: 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) permits recording where the person recording is a party or where one of the parties has given prior consent, so it is not limited to parties, and the page no longer says it is.

Corrected the interstate phone-call section: Oregon does not require all-party consent for phone calls (only for in-person conversations), so it was removed from the list of stricter states and replaced with Connecticut, whose phone-specific civil-liability rule does functionally require all-party consent.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

Rescoped ARS 16-1023's expedited 2-day track to declaratory relief only; clarified that injunctive relief and damages are a separate remedy with additional proof requirements, not an expedited track available to candidates.

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Corrected the body-worn camera section: ARS 38-1171 and 38-1172 are unrelated first-responder death-benefit statutes, not body-camera definitions or requirements; Arizona has no single statewide body-cam statute, only ARS 41-1734 governing DPS's own footage.

Corrected the 2026-05-09 changelog entry, which restated the now-fixed false claim that ARS § 38-1171 and § 38-1172 are body-camera statutes; they are unrelated first-responder death-benefit provisions.

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Competitive gap-check against the #1 organic Google result for the query arizona recording laws (a Phoenix family-law firm blog, bdblawfirm.com) found no genuine content gaps: the competitor page is materially thinner than this article and covers no statute, case, or penalty detail not already here. Its implication that Arizona courts routinely exclude illegally recorded evidence was checked against the full text of ARS § 13-3005 and § 13-3012 and found unsupported (neither statute contains an exclusionary-evidence provision), so it was not added. Independently re-verified core citations against primary sources with no corrections needed: Hart v. Seven Resorts, 190 Ariz. 272 (App. 1997); Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 150 Ariz. 326 (1986); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995); Askins v. DHS, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018); Arizona Broadcasters Ass'n v. Mayes, 2:22-cv-01431-JJT (order July 21, 2023); Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023); and the TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (May 19, 2025). Note: a later case-support check found the Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers citation had been attached to the wrong proposition (Godbehere is a false light invasion-of-privacy decision, not an intrusion-upon-seclusion one), so the 'no corrections needed' result did not hold for that citation. A later case-support check also found that the court order on file in the Arizona Broadcasters case is the September 9, 2022 preliminary injunction in Arizona Broadcasters Ass'n v. Brnovich, which found the plaintiffs likely to succeed rather than issuing a final ruling, so the page's description was narrowed to that order.

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Restructured per recording-redo template spec: added AEO lede, KeyTakeaways, at-a-glance table, and dedicated H2 sections for in-person recording, phone calls, hidden cameras, penalties, police recording, special topics (deepfakes, NCII, workplace NLRB, federal ECPA/FCC, open meetings), recent developments, and in-depth sub-page index. Condensed special-topics material into short subsections while preserving all key statute citations. Refreshed FAQSection to 8 Qs matching template spec. Verified all load-bearing facts against primary azleg.gov sources: ARS § 13-3005, § 13-3012(9), § 13-3019, § 12-731, and § 13-702 sentencing ranges all confirmed accurate. Zero fact corrections from primary-source verification.

Refreshed for 2026 with a bifurcated statute strategy. Built dedicated H2s for ARS § 13-3005 (audio one-party consent) and ARS § 13-3019 (surreptitious photographing and videotaping in a private place), with a side-by-side comparison and a private-place explainer. Reframed HB 2319 / ARS § 13-3732 (the 8-foot police buffer) as permanently enjoined by stipulated injunction and declaratory judgment in Arizona Broadcasters Ass'n v. Mayes, No. 2:22-cv-01431-JJT (D. Ariz. July 21, 2023) (Tuchi, J.), not 'struck down on the merits' or 'ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit.' Added HB 2394 (ARS § 16-1023) civil deepfake action enacted May 21, 2024, and SB 1359 election deepfake disclosure enacted May 29, 2024. Confirmed SB 1078 was not enacted. Replaced erroneous record-the-police references with the 9th Circuit pair: Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), and Askins v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018). Corrected body-camera citations to ARS § 38-1171 (definitions), § 38-1172 (peace officer body-worn camera, AZ POST consequences, SB 1386 origin), and § 41-1734 (state-agency video disclosure, redaction, and fee). Updated FCC 24-24 (One-to-One Consent Rule) to vacated by 11th Cir. mandate April 30, 2025; removed stale 47 CFR § 64.501 (deleted November 20, 2017). Added NLRB Stericycle / GC 25-05 / GC 25-07 workplace recording overlay and TAKE IT DOWN Act federal compliance (signed May 19, 2025; platform notice-and-takedown effective May 19, 2026). Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with azleg.gov, azcourts.gov, uscode.house.gov, fcc.gov, nlrb.gov, ftc.gov, and clearinghouse.net. Keywords array populated (was empty).

Refreshed for 2026 with a bifurcated statute strategy. Built dedicated H2s for ARS § 13-3005 (audio one-party consent) and ARS § 13-3019 (surreptitious photographing and videotaping in a private place), with a side-by-side comparison and a private-place explainer. Reframed HB 2319 / ARS § 13-3732 (the 8-foot police buffer) as enjoined by a federal court in the Arizona Broadcasters Ass'n case (D. Ariz. No. CV-22-01431), not 'struck down on the merits' or 'ruled unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit.' Added HB 2394 (ARS § 16-1023) civil deepfake action enacted May 21, 2024, and SB 1359 election deepfake disclosure enacted May 29, 2024. Confirmed SB 1078 was not enacted. Replaced erroneous record-the-police references with the 9th Circuit pair: Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), and Askins v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018). Corrected body-camera citations to ARS § 41-1734 (state-agency video disclosure, redaction, and fee). Note: a later correction found ARS § 38-1171 and § 38-1172 are unrelated first-responder death-benefit provisions, not body-camera statutes, despite what this entry originally said. Updated FCC 24-24 (One-to-One Consent Rule) to vacated by 11th Cir. mandate April 30, 2025; removed stale 47 CFR § 64.501 (deleted November 20, 2017). Added NLRB Stericycle / GC 25-05 / GC 25-07 workplace recording overlay and TAKE IT DOWN Act federal compliance (signed May 19, 2025; platform notice-and-takedown effective May 19, 2026). Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with azleg.gov, azcourts.gov, uscode.house.gov, fcc.gov, nlrb.gov, ftc.gov, and clearinghouse.net. Keywords array populated (was empty).

Added wearable recording device guidance covering AI voice recorders (Plaud) and smart glasses (Meta Ray-Bans) under Arizona one-party consent law.

Sources and References

  1. ARS 13-3005; ARS 13-3012(9)(azleg.gov).gov
  2. ARS 13-3019(A)(azleg.gov).gov
  3. ARS 13-3005; ARS 13-3019(azleg.gov).gov
  4. ARS 13-3005(azleg.gov).gov
  5. ARS 13-3001(azleg.gov).gov
  6. ARS 13-3012(9)(azleg.gov).gov
  7. ARS 13-3019(A), (B), (E)(azleg.gov).gov
  8. ARS 13-3019(C)(azleg.gov).gov
  9. ARS 12-731(azleg.gov).gov
  10. Hart v. Seven Resorts Inc., 190 Ariz. 272 (App. 1997); Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, 162 Ariz. 335 (1989); Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins., 150 Ariz. 326 (1986)
  11. ARS 13-702(azleg.gov).gov
  12. ARS 13-1425(azleg.gov).gov
  13. ARS 13-3019(A); ARS 13-3005(azleg.gov).gov
  14. ARS 13-3005; CA Penal Code 632; FL Stat. 934.03; 720 ILCS 5/14-2; 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)(azleg.gov).gov
  15. ARS 13-3019(A), (C); ARS 13-3005(azleg.gov).gov
  16. FTC v. Ring (2023); 15 U.S.C. 45 (FTC Act 5)(ftc.gov).gov
  17. Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023); ARS 13-3005; ARS 13-3019; Ariz. Const. art. XXV(nlrb.gov).gov
  18. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025); NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025)(nlrb.gov).gov
  19. Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995); Askins v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018)(ca9.uscourts.gov).gov
  20. Arizona Broadcasters Ass'n v. Mayes, No. 2:22-cv-01431-JJT (D. Ariz. July 21, 2023) (Tuchi, J.)(clearinghouse.net)
  21. ARS 41-1734 - DPS Body-Worn Camera Video Release, Redaction, and Fee Rules(azleg.gov).gov
  22. 18 U.S.C. 2510-2522; 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d); DOJ Justice Manual 9-7.302(uscode.house.gov).gov
  23. FCC 24-17 Declaratory Ruling (Feb. 2024); 47 U.S.C. 227(fcc.gov).gov
  24. Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. mandate Apr. 30, 2025); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(9); 47 C.F.R. 64.501 (removed)(media.ca11.uscourts.gov).gov
  25. ARS 16-1023 (HB 2394, 56th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess., 2024)(azleg.gov).gov
  26. Arizona SB 1359 (56th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess., 2024); Arizona SB 1078 (failed)(azleg.gov).gov
  27. TAKE IT DOWN Act, S. 146, 119th Cong., Pub. L. 119-12(congress.gov).gov
  28. 47 U.S.C. 1001-1010 (CALEA); 45 C.F.R. Part 164 (HIPAA); 12 C.F.R. 1006.6 (Reg F)(uscode.house.gov).gov
  29. ARS 12-542(azleg.gov).gov
  30. ARS 13-3732(azleg.gov).gov
  31. ARS 38-1171(azleg.gov).gov
  32. azleg.gov.gov
  33. ARS 38-431.01(azleg.gov).gov
  34. Arizona Constitution(azleg.gov).gov
  35. 18 U.S.C. Chapter 119 (Wire and Electronic Communications Interception)(uscode.house.gov).gov
  36. DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.000: Electronic Surveillance(justice.gov).gov
  37. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) (one-party consent exemption, full text)(govinfo.gov)
Share: