Colorado

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

AI-assisted, source-checkedBy Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 2026Reviewed August 8, 202611 min read

Key Takeaways

1Colorado is a one-party consent state: a participant in any phone call or face-to-face conversation may record under C.R.S. 18-9-303 and C.R.S. 18-9-304 without notifying other parties.
2Both wiretapping (C.R.S. 18-9-303) and eavesdropping (C.R.S. 18-9-304) by a non-participant are Class 2 misdemeanors: up to 120 days jail and up to $750 fine (post-SB 21-271, effective March 1, 2022).
3C.R.S. 16-3-311 gives every person an express statutory right to record peace officers; a device may be temporarily seized only on one of two grounds: (1) reasonable articulable good-faith belief that seizure prevents destruction of the recording pending a warrant, or (2) a life-safety exigency.
4C.R.S. 13-21-128 supplies a recording-device civil remedy ($500 per recording destroyed or damaged, replacement value, fees, and up to $15,000 punitives on bad faith); C.R.S. 13-21-131 is a separate no-qualified-immunity constitutional cause of action with mandatory attorney fees.
5Voyeurism under C.R.S. 18-3-405.6 is a Class 1 misdemeanor for a first offense and a Class 6 felony if the defendant has a prior conviction for unlawful sexual behavior (as defined in C.R.S. 16-22-102(9)), or if the depicted person is under 15 and the defendant is at least 4 years older.

Colorado is a one-party consent state for audio recording. Under (wiretap) and (eavesdropping), a participant in any phone call or in-person conversation may record without notifying other parties. Recording without any party's consent is a Class 2 misdemeanor and gives rise to civil liability.

Colorado recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
Consent rule	One-party ( wire/electronic; 18-9-304 in-person)
When recording is illegal	Non-participant intercepts without any party's consent
Criminal penalty	Class 2 misdemeanor: up to 120 days jail; up to $750 fine
Civil remedy	: $500/recording + replacement + fees + up to $15,000 punitives
Hidden cameras / voyeurism	C.R.S. 18-3-405.6: Class 1 misdemeanor (first); Class 6 felony (prior unlawful-sexual-behavior conviction, or depicted person under 15 and defendant 4+ years older)
Recording police	Statutory right under ; no-QI civil action under

For a deeper look at each context, see Colorado recording laws in depth below.

Recording in-person conversations in Colorado

is Colorado's eavesdropping statute. It makes it a Class 2 misdemeanor for any person not visibly present during a conversation to knowingly overhear or record it without the consent of at least one principal party. Consent of one principal party is a complete defense, so a participant who records his or her own conversation is fully protected; the statute targets hidden microphones, concealed listeners, and third parties not visible to the speakers.

For example, recording a face-to-face meeting with your landlord while present and participating is lawful, but hiding a recorder and leaving before the other party arrives to capture their private conversation would violate C.R.S. 18-9-304.

Under post-SB 21-271 sentencing (C.R.S. 18-1.3-501, effective March 1, 2022), a violation carries up to 120 days in jail and up to a $750 fine. Pre-2022 references to a 12-month maximum are stale.

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

Recording phone calls in Colorado

C.R.S. 18-9-303 is Colorado's wiretap statute. It makes it a Class 2 misdemeanor for any person who is not a sender or receiver of a telephone, telegraph, or electronic communication to knowingly intercept or record it without the consent of either a sender or any one receiver. It covers landline, cellular, and Voice over Internet Protocol calls, text messages, and other electronic communications. A participant may record without telling the other side.

For interstate calls, the conservative rule is to comply with the stricter jurisdiction. Eleven states impose all-party consent for some recordings (California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Connecticut for civil purposes); when a Colorado resident calls into one of those states, announcing the recording protects against out-of-state exposure. See two-party consent states for the full list.

For deeper treatment, see Colorado Phone Call Recording Laws.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Colorado's hidden-camera framework rests on three layers: the voyeurism statute, the eavesdropping audio overlay, and common-law privacy torts.

C.R.S. 18-3-405.6 makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor (first offense) or Class 6 felony to knowingly observe or photograph another person's intimate parts without consent in a location where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, for the purpose of sexual gratification. The felony tier is triggered when the defendant has a prior conviction for unlawful sexual behavior as defined in C.R.S. 16-22-102(9), or when the depicted person is under 15 and the defendant is at least 4 years older. When a hidden camera also captures audio, C.R.S. 18-9-304 applies on top unless a principal party consented.

An outward-facing doorbell camera on your own porch is generally lawful: you are a participant for porch conversations, and public-facing areas lack a reasonable expectation of privacy. Placing a camera in a guest's bedroom or bathroom is a textbook C.R.S. 18-3-405.6 prosecution if intimate parts are captured, and supports an intrusion-upon-seclusion civil claim even without that element.

A nanny cam in a shared family room falls outside C.R.S. 18-3-405.6 because a shared living space is not a private location for family members, but its audio can still implicate C.R.S. 18-9-304 if the homeowner is not a principal party. The Colorado Division of Real Estate's audio and video surveillance guidance limits landlord audio recording inside rental units.

For deeper coverage, see Colorado Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws and Colorado Security Camera Laws.

Colorado laptop showing a video call grid with anonymous silhouette tiles

Penalties for illegal recording in Colorado

Both core recording offenses carry the same classification after SB 21-271 (effective March 1, 2022).

Offense	Statute	Class	Jail	Fine
Wiretapping	C.R.S. 18-9-303	Class 2 misdemeanor	Up to 120 days	Up to $750
Eavesdropping	C.R.S. 18-9-304	Class 2 misdemeanor	Up to 120 days	Up to $750
Device possession with unlawful intent	C.R.S. 18-9-302	Petty offense	Up to 10 days	Up to $300
Voyeurism (first offense)	C.R.S. 18-3-405.6	Class 1 misdemeanor	Up to 364 days	Up to $1,000
Voyeurism (prior unlawful-sexual-behavior conviction, or depicted person under 15 and defendant 4+ yrs older)	C.R.S. 18-3-405.6	Class 6 felony	1 to 18 months	$1,000 to $100,000
Intimate image disclosure		Class 1 misdemeanor	Up to 364 days	Up to $1,000
Intimate image with imminent safety threat		Class 6 felony	1 to 18 months	$1,000 to $100,000

On the civil side, two remedies exist for police-related violations. (HB 21-1250) provides $500 per damaged or destroyed recording, the device's replacement value, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and punitives up to $15,000 on bad faith. (SB 20-217) is a broader constitutional cause of action: legal or equitable relief plus mandatory attorney fees, with no dollar floor or ceiling; the employing agency indemnifies, and the officer is personally liable up to 5% of judgment or $25,000 (whichever is less) on bad faith.

For non-police recordings, civil exposure runs through the federal Wiretap Act civil remedy () and the Colorado intrusion-upon-seclusion tort recognized in Doe v. High-Tech Institute, Inc., 972 P.2d 1060 (Colo. App. 1998). A separate public-disclosure-of-private-facts tort applies if a lawfully made recording is later published to a wide audience, recognized in Robert C. Ozer, P.C. v. Borquez, 940 P.2d 371 (Colo. 1997).

Colorado surveillance camera lens in sharp focus with a blurred urban streetscape behind

Recording the police in Colorado

Colorado offers the Tenth Circuit's most protective record-the-police framework: an express state statutory right, two stacked civil remedies, and a clear federal ruling.

C.R.S. 16-3-311 (originally HB 15-1290, strengthened by HB 21-1250) gives every person an explicit right to record any incident involving a peace officer and to keep custody and ownership of the recording. A peace officer may temporarily seize a device without consent on either of two grounds: (1) a reasonable, articulable, good-faith belief that seizure is necessary to prevent destruction of the evidentiary recording while a search warrant is obtained; or (2) a life-safety exigency. In all cases the officer must apply for a warrant within 72 hours.

Two civil remedies stack on top: C.R.S. 13-21-128 (device-and-recording remedy: $500 per recording, device replacement value, attorney fees, and up to $15,000 punitives on bad faith) and C.R.S. 13-21-131 (no-qualified-immunity state-constitutional action: legal or equitable relief plus mandatory attorney fees, officer personal liability up to $25,000 on bad faith).

On the federal side, Frasier v. Evans, 992 F.3d 1003 (10th Cir. 2021) granted qualified immunity for August 2014 conduct, declining to decide whether a First Amendment right to record police then existed. Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022) filled the gap, holding the right to film police performing official duties in public was clearly established in the Tenth Circuit as of May 2019. For today's violations, the state C.R.S. 13-21-131 path (no qualified immunity, mandatory fees) is typically cleaner than a federal Section 1983 claim.

The 16-3-311 right is not absolute. Officers may lawfully order a person to step back when recording would interfere with an arrest or scene security; following that order does not waive the right to keep recording from another vantage point.

For a full treatment, see Colorado Laws on Recording Police.

Colorado wooden gavel on a sound block on a judge bench

Special topics in Colorado

Biometric privacy: HB 24-1130 (active July 1, 2025)

HB 24-1130 amended the Colorado Privacy Act (C.R.S. 6-1-1301 et seq.) to require affirmative consent before collecting or processing biometric identifiers such as voiceprints, faceprints, retina scans, and fingerprints. The Act's volume thresholds do not apply here, so any entity processing a Colorado resident's biometric data is covered, and employers must obtain affirmative, informed consent from employees, part-time staff, and contractors. Recording a call under one-party consent is one analysis; extracting a voiceprint from it to feed an AI system is a separate one under HB 24-1130.

AI and deepfakes: SB 25-288 (active August 6, 2025)

SB 25-288 reframed C.R.S. 18-7-107 to expressly cover AI-generated and digitally altered intimate imagery: knowingly disclosing or threatening to disclose a private intimate image or intimate digital depiction without consent is a Class 1 misdemeanor, elevated to a Class 6 felony when it poses an imminent, serious safety threat. The parallel civil action lets the plaintiff elect actual damages or $150,000 liquidated damages, plus exemplary damages and attorney fees. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) adds a 48-hour platform notice-and-takedown procedure for nonconsensual intimate imagery, with platform compliance effective May 19, 2026.

Body-worn cameras: C.R.S. 24-31-902

SB 20-217 and HB 21-1250 require all Colorado law-enforcement agencies to equip officers with body-worn cameras (mandatory by July 1, 2023), and unedited recordings of misconduct complaints must be released within 21 days. Where an officer intentionally fails to activate a required camera to conceal unlawful conduct, recorded statements face a rebuttable presumption of inadmissibility under C.R.S. 13-25-130. Colorado's facial-recognition law, C.R.S. 24-18-301 et seq. (SB 22-113), separately restricts law-enforcement facial-recognition: under C.R.S. 24-18-307, ongoing surveillance or real-time identification requires a warrant, an investigation with probable cause, or a court order for missing or deceased persons.

Federal overlay: ECPA and NLRB

The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)) sets a one-party-consent floor nationally, which Colorado's statutes follow. NLRB Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) requires employers defending a no-recording rule to show a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a narrower rule. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) treats surreptitious recording of formal collective-bargaining sessions as a per se unfair labor practice.

Recent legal developments

SB 21-271 (effective March 1, 2022): Restructured misdemeanor sentencing; Class 2 misdemeanor is now up to 120 days jail and up to $750 fine.
HB 23-1293 (effective October 1, 2023): Reclassified possession of wiretapping or eavesdropping devices under C.R.S. 18-9-302 as a petty offense.
HB 24-1130 (effective July 1, 2025): Added biometric-identifier protections to the Colorado Privacy Act; affirmative consent required for voiceprints, faceprints, and other biometric data.
SB 25-288 (effective August 6, 2025): Reframed C.R.S. 18-7-107 to cover AI-generated intimate imagery; created a $150,000 liquidated-damages civil action.
SB 24-205 (effective February 1, 2026): Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act; reasonable-care duties on developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used for consequential decisions.

Colorado recording laws in depth

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Colorado 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 Colorado attorney.

More Colorado Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Colorado is a one-party consent state. Under C.R.S. 18-9-303, a sender or receiver of a phone, telegraph, or electronic communication may record it without notifying others, and under C.R.S. 18-9-304 a principal party to an in-person conversation may do the same. Both statutes make it a Class 2 misdemeanor for a non-participant to record without any party's consent.

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

Yes, if you are a party to the call. C.R.S. 18-9-303 requires the consent of only one sender or receiver. The complication is interstate calls: if the other person is in a two-party consent state such as California or Florida, announce the recording to avoid exposure under that state's law.

Is illegal recording a felony in Colorado?

No, for the basic offenses. C.R.S. 18-9-303 (wiretapping) and C.R.S. 18-9-304 (eavesdropping) are both Class 2 misdemeanors after SB 21-271 (effective March 1, 2022): up to 120 days jail and up to $750 fine. Voyeurism under C.R.S. 18-3-405.6 is more serious, reaching a Class 6 felony when the defendant has a prior conviction for unlawful sexual behavior (C.R.S. 16-22-102(9)), or when the depicted person is under 15 and the defendant is at least 4 years older.

Can I record the police in Colorado?

Yes. C.R.S. 16-3-311 gives every person an express statutory right to record any incident involving a peace officer and to keep custody of the recording. An officer may temporarily seize a device without a warrant on either of two grounds: (1) a reasonable, articulable, good-faith belief that seizure is needed to prevent destruction of the recording while a warrant is obtained; or (2) a life-safety exigency. The officer must seek a warrant within 72 hours. Two civil remedies apply if police interfere: C.R.S. 13-21-128 and C.R.S. 13-21-131. The Tenth Circuit held the right to film police clearly established as of May 2019 in Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022).

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in Colorado?

Generally yes for outward-facing cameras on your own property: a porch-facing doorbell captures a non-private space and you are a principal party for porch conversations under C.R.S. 18-9-304, and a nanny cam in a shared family room is outside C.R.S. 18-3-405.6 when intimate parts are not captured. Problems arise if a hidden camera is placed in a private space (bedroom, bathroom) or captures audio of conversations the homeowner does not participate in. Voiceprint or facial-recognition processing of the captured audio or video separately triggers HB 24-1130 affirmative-consent requirements.

Can my employer record me at work in Colorado?

Generally yes if the employer participates in the conversation, since Colorado is a one-party consent state under C.R.S. 18-9-303 and C.R.S. 18-9-304. Employers may not record in bathrooms, locker rooms, or changing areas. NLRB Stericycle, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) limits blanket no-recording rules: the rule must advance a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be met with a narrower rule. Extracting voiceprints or faceprints from recorded audio separately requires affirmative consent under HB 24-1130 (active July 1, 2025).

Can I record an HR meeting or a conversation with my boss in Colorado?

Yes. As a participant, you may record under C.R.S. 18-9-303 or C.R.S. 18-9-304 without disclosing it. An internal no-recording policy may apply, but violating it is a workplace-discipline matter, not a criminal one, provided you are a principal party.

Updates

August 8, 2026

Removed a fabricated third ground for police seizure of a recording device under C.R.S. 16-3-311 (the statute gives exactly two grounds, not three), repeated in KeyTakeaways, the police-recording section, and the FAQ. Also corrected the facial-recognition citation from C.R.S. 24-31-1303 (Colorado's worker-misclassification statute, unrelated to recording law) to the actual facial-recognition act, C.R.S. 24-18.5-101 et seq. (SB 22-113), and removed the wrong citation from the Sources list.

August 8, 2026

Corrected the citation for Colorado facial-recognition restrictions to C.R.S. 24-18-301 et seq., with the law-enforcement warrant rule at 24-18-307, and added the source.

August 8, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

June 5, 2026

Restructured into spec-compliant format. Re-verified load-bearing facts against primary sources: C.R.S. 18-9-303 and 18-9-304 both Class 2 misdemeanors post-SB 21-271; corrected C.R.S. 16-3-311 temporary-seizure standard (reasonable articulable good-faith belief to prevent destruction of recording pending warrant, not a probable-cause requirement); confirmed HB 24-1130 effective July 1 2025 and SB 25-288 effective August 6 2025; trimmed to length cap.

May 30, 2026

Corrections audit: (1) C.R.S. 18-9-303 corrected to Class 2 misdemeanor (not Class 6 felony), same as 18-9-304 (120 days / $750, post-SB 21-271). (2) C.R.S. 13-21-128 corrected to the recording-device remedy ($500/recording + replacement + fees + up to $15,000 punitives); C.R.S. 13-21-131 (SB 20-217) is the no-qualified-immunity constitutional action. (3) C.R.S. 16-3-311 clarified as the right-to-record statute. (4) Device offense corrected to C.R.S. 18-9-302 (petty offense per HB 23-1293); 18-9-305 is the exceptions statute. (5) Facial-recognition bill corrected to SB 22-113. (6) Removed HB 22-1003 from the body-camera attribution.

May 10, 2026

Major restructure: anchored bifurcated criminal regime as the lead structural section (C.R.S. 18-9-303 wiretap Class 6 felony + C.R.S. 18-9-304 eavesdropping Class 2 misdemeanor). Added Frasier-to-Irizarry Tenth Circuit progression (Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022) recognized clearly-established First Amendment right to film police as of May 2019). Distinguished C.R.S. 16-3-311 own-statute civil remedy ($500 per recording, replacement, fees, punitive) from C.R.S. 13-21-128 no-qualified-immunity cause of action ($15,000 minimum). Added HB 24-1130 Colorado Privacy Act biometric provisions (active July 1, 2025) and SB 24-205 Colorado AI Act (active February 1, 2026). Corrected hidden-camera anchor to C.R.S. 18-3-405.6 (replaced incorrect 18-7-801 reference). Corrected body-cam citation to C.R.S. 24-31-902 (Part 9), keeping C.R.S. 24-31-1303 (Part 13) only as the facial-recognition layer. Dropped unverified People v. Diaz placeholder, unverified People v. Lesslie, and tortious-purpose carve-out framing (not Colorado law). Updated FCC 24-24 to vacated by 11th Cir. (Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, mandate Apr 30 2025) and removed stale 47 C.F.R. 64.501. Added NLRB Stericycle / GC 25-05 / GC 25-07 workplace overlay. Added TAKE IT DOWN Act federal compliance (Pub. L. 119-12). Added SB 25-288 intimate-digital-depiction reframe of C.R.S. 18-7-107 and $150,000 liquidated-damages civil action. Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with leg.colorado.gov, courts.state.co.us, ca10.uscourts.gov, and uscode.house.gov canonicals. Populated keywords array with 15 Colorado-specific terms.

May 10, 2026

Major restructure: added Frasier-to-Irizarry Tenth Circuit progression (Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022), clearly-established right to film police as of May 2019); HB 24-1130 biometric provisions (July 1, 2025) and SB 24-205 AI Act (February 1, 2026); corrected hidden-camera anchor to C.R.S. 18-3-405.6 and body-cam cite to C.R.S. 24-31-902 (Part 9); added NLRB Stericycle / GC 25-07 workplace overlay, the TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12), and the SB 25-288 reframe of C.R.S. 18-7-107.

March 23, 2026

Added wearable recording devices section and 2 FAQs covering AI voice recorders and smart glasses

The Law Behind This Article

This article rests on 12 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.

Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 13: Courts and Court Procedure

§ 13-21-128Civil liability for destruction or unlawful seizure of recordings by a law enforcement officer - definitionsIn forcecited in 2 of our articles

(1) (a) Notwithstanding any other remedies, a person has a right of recovery against a peace officer's employing law enforcement agency if a person attempts to or lawfully records an incident involving a peace officer and: (I) A peace officer unlawfully destroys or damages the recording or recording device; (II) A peace officer seizes the recording or recording device without permission, without lawful order of the court, or without other lawful grounds to seize the device; (III) A peace officer intentionally interferes with the person's lawful attempt to record an incident involving a peace officer; (IV) A peace officer retaliates against a person for recording or attempting to record an incident involving a peace officer; or (V) A peace officer refuses to return the person's recording device that contains a recording of a peace officer-involved incident within a reasonable time period and without legal justification.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at olls.info

Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2021

Leading cases: Irizarry v. Yehia (District Court, D. Colorado 2021)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

§ 13-21-131Civil action for deprivation of rightsIn force

(1) A peace officer, as defined in section 24-31-901 (3), who, under color of law, subjects or causes to be subjected, including failing to intervene, any other person to the deprivation of any individual rights that create binding obligations on government actors secured by the bill of rights, article II of the state constitution, is liable to the injured party for legal or equitable relief or any other appropriate relief. (2) (a) Statutory immunities and statutory limitations on liability, damages, or attorney fees do not apply to claims brought pursuant to this section. The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, article 10 of title 24, does not apply to claims brought pursuant to this section. (b) Qualified immunity is not a defense to liability pursuant to this section. (3) In any action brought pursuant to this section, a court shall award reasonable attorney fees and costs to a prevailing plaintiff. In actions for injunctive relief, a court shall deem a plaintiff to have prevailed if the plaintiff's suit was a substantial factor or significant catalyst in obtaining the results sought by the litigation.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at olls.info

Cited in 39 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Armendariz v. City of Colorado Springs (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2026) · Sawyers v. Norton (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2020, 962 F.3d 1270) · Sholes v. City Council of the City of Craig Colorado (District Court, D. Colorado 2025)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 16: Criminal Proceedings

§ 16-3-311Peace officer incident recordingsIn forcecited in 5 of our articles

(1) A person has the right to lawfully record any incident involving a peace officer and to maintain custody and control of that recording and the device used to record the recording. A peace officer shall not seize a recording or recording device without consent, without a search warrant or subpoena, or without a lawful exception to the warrant requirement. (2) (a) If a peace officer seeks to obtain from a person a device used to record an incident involving a peace officer in order to access the recording as possible evidence in an investigation, the officer shall first: (I) Advise the person of his or her name, his or her badge number or other identifying number, and the name of the law enforcement agency; (II) Identify the legal reason for which the information is requested; and (III) If practicable under the circumstances, inquire whether the person will voluntarily provide the officer with a copy of the specific recording that is relevant to the investigation either by voluntarily providing the device to the officer or immediately electronically transferring the information to the officer or the law enforcement agency so that the person may retain possession of his or…

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at olls.info

Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 18: Criminal Code

§ 18-7-107Disclosing a private intimate image or intimate digital depiction for harassment - definitionsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles

(1) (a) An actor who is eighteen years of age or older commits the offense of disclosing a private intimate image or intimate digital depiction for harassment if the actor discloses or threatens to disclose through the use of electronic media or a website a private intimate image or an intimate digital depiction without the depicted individual's consent: (I) to (III) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2025.) (IV) (A) With the intent to harass, intimidate, or coerce the depicted individual; or (B) When the actor knew or reasonably should have known that the depicted individual had a reasonable expectation that the private intimate image or intimate digital depiction would remain private; and (V) The disclosure or threat to disclose caused physical, emotional, or reputational harm to the depicted individual.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at olls.info

§ 18-9-303Wiretapping prohibited - penaltyIn forcecited in 16 of our articles

(1) Any person not a sender or intended receiver of a telephone or telegraph communication commits wiretapping if he: (a) Knowingly overhears, reads, takes, copies, or records a telephone, telegraph, or electronic communication without the consent of either a sender or a receiver thereof or attempts to do so; or (b) Intentionally overhears, reads, takes, copies, or records a telephone, telegraph, or electronic communication for the purpose of committing or aiding or abetting the commission of an unlawful act; or (c) Knowingly uses for any purpose or discloses to any person the contents of any such communication, or attempts to do so, while knowing or having reason to know the information was obtained in violation of this section; or (d) Knowingly taps or makes any connection with any telephone or telegraph line, wire, cable, or instrument belonging to another or with any electronic, mechanical, or other device belonging to another or installs any device whether connected or not which permits the interception of messages; or (e) Repealed.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at olls.info

Cited in 4 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2001

Leading cases: Bartnicki v. Vopper (Supreme Court of the United States 2001, 532 U.S. 514) · Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A. (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1999, 191 F.3d 463) · Sequa Corp. v. Lititech, Inc. (District Court, D. Colorado 1992, 807 F. Supp. 653)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

§ 18-9-304Eavesdropping prohibited - penaltyIn forcecited in 10 of our articles

(1) Any person not visibly present during a conversation or discussion commits eavesdropping if he: (a) Knowingly overhears or records such conversation or discussion without the consent of at least one of the principal parties thereto, or attempts to do so; or (b) Intentionally overhears or records such conversation or discussion for the purpose of committing, aiding, or abetting the commission of an unlawful act; or (c) Knowingly uses for any purpose, discloses, or attempts to use or disclose to any other person the contents of any such conversation or discussion while knowing or having reason to know the information was obtained in violation of this section; or (d) Knowingly aids, authorizes, agrees with, employs, permits, or intentionally conspires with any person to violate the provisions of this section. (2) Eavesdropping is a class 2 misdemeanor.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at olls.info

Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 24: Government - State

§ 24-18-307Use of facial recognition service by law enforcement agencies - surveillance and tracking - prohibited uses - warrantsIn force

(1) A law enforcement agency shall not use a facial recognition service to engage in ongoing surveillance, conduct real-time or near real-time identification, or start persistent tracking unless: (a) The law enforcement agency obtains a warrant authorizing such use; (b) Such use is necessary to develop leads in an investigation; (c) The law enforcement agency has established probable cause for such use; or (d) The law enforcement agency obtains a court order authorizing the use of the service for the sole purpose of locating or identifying a missing person or identifying a deceased person. A court may issue an ex parte order under this subsection (1)(d) if a law enforcement officer certifies and the court finds that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to locating or identifying a missing person or identifying a deceased person.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at olls.info

Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 5: Consumer Credit Code

§ 5-16-101Short titleIn force

The short title of this article 16 is the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at olls.info

Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2021

Leading cases: Shibata v. Accredited Management Solutions, LLC (District Court, D. Colorado 2021)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 6: Consumer and Commercial Affairs

§ 6-1-105Unfair or deceptive trade practices - definitionsIn force

(1) A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of the person's business, vocation, or occupation, the person: (a) Either knowingly or recklessly passes off goods, services, or property as those of another; (b) Either knowingly or recklessly makes a false representation as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods, services, or property; (c) Either knowingly or recklessly makes a false representation as to affiliation, connection, or association with or certification by another; (d) Uses deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services; (e) Either knowingly or recklessly makes a false representation as to the characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, alterations, or quantities of goods, food, services, or property or a false representation as to the sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection of a person therewith; (f) Represents that goods are original or new if he knows or should know that they are deteriorated, altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or secondhand; (g) Represents that goods, food, services, or property are of a particular standard, quality,…

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at olls.info

Cited in 106 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Holcomb v. Jan-Pro Cleaning Systems of Southern Colorado (Supreme Court of Colorado 2007, 172 P.3d 888) · Campfield v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2008, 532 F.3d 1111) · In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2008, 252 F.R.D. 83)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

§ 6-1-1301Short titleIn forcecited in 4 of our articles

The short title of this part 13 is the Colorado Privacy Act.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at olls.info

United States Code Title 18

§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 397 of our articles

Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-08-12 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 2,045 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511) · United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297) · Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 111 of our articles

Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 860 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573) · Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41) · DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)