Colorado Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties

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

Colorado is a one-party consent state for audio recording. If you are a sender or receiver of a phone, telegraph, or electronic communication under C.R.S. 18-9-303, or a principal party to an in-person conversation under C.R.S. 18-9-304, you may record without telling anyone else.

The defining wrinkle in Colorado is the bifurcated criminal regime. Unlawful interception of a phone, wire, or electronic communication is a Class 6 felony under 18-9-303 (1 to 18 months prison; $1,000 to $100,000 fine). Unlawful eavesdropping on an in-person conversation is a Class 2 misdemeanor under 18-9-304 (up to 120 days jail; up to $750 fine).

The split is based on the medium of the conversation, not on the one-party / all-party axis. Layered on top: C.R.S. 16-3-311 (statutory right to record peace officers), C.R.S. 13-21-128 (no-qualified-immunity state cause of action with $15,000 minimum), the Tenth Circuit Frasier-to-Irizarry progression, the Colorado Privacy Act biometric amendments, and SB 25-288 intimate-digital-depiction reach.

Key Point	Details
Audio consent rule	One-party (C.R.S. 18-9-303 wire / electronic; 18-9-304 in-person)
Phone-call interception	Class 6 felony (C.R.S. 18-9-303)
In-person interception	Class 2 misdemeanor (C.R.S. 18-9-304)
Phone-call penalty	1 to 18 months prison; $1,000 to $100,000 fine; one year mandatory parole
In-person penalty	Up to 120 days jail; up to $750 fine
Police-recording right	C.R.S. 16-3-311 (HB 21-1250): $500/recording + replacement + fees + punitive
State civil action	C.R.S. 13-21-128: $15,000 minimum, no qualified immunity
Tenth Circuit doctrine	Frasier (2021) qualified immunity pre-May 2019; Irizarry (2022) clearly established post-May 2019
Biometric layer	HB 24-1130 (active July 1, 2025): voiceprints, faceprints, employee data
Deepfake / NCII	SB 25-288 (active August 6, 2025): $150,000 liquidated civil floor

Colorado's Bifurcated Recording Statutes: Wiretap vs. Eavesdropping

Colorado has two separate criminal statutes that protect different audio media. C.R.S. 18-9-303 (wiretapping) governs the interception of telephone, telegraph, and electronic communications and is a Class 6 felony. C.R.S. 18-9-304 (eavesdropping) governs the interception of in-person oral conversations and is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

Both statutes embed a one-party-consent rule. A participant who records his or her own conversation is lawful in either subsystem. The bifurcation is the defining structural feature of Colorado recording law: the same actor recording the same audio content faces dramatically different criminal exposure depending on whether the conversation is transmitted by wire (felony) or face-to-face in person (misdemeanor).

Element	C.R.S. 18-9-303 (Wiretap)	C.R.S. 18-9-304 (Eavesdropping)
What is covered	Interception of telephone, telegraph, or electronic communications	Interception of in-person oral conversations
Actor status	Person who is NOT a sender or receiver	Person who is NOT visibly present
Consent rule	Consent of either a sender or any one receiver is a complete defense	Consent of at least one principal party is a complete defense
Covered media	Landline, cellular, VoIP, email, text, telegraph, electronic transmissions	Face-to-face conversations not transmitted by wire, phone, or electronic means
Classification	Class 6 felony	Class 2 misdemeanor
Penalty range	1 to 18 months prison; $1,000 to $100,000 fine; one year mandatory parole	Up to 120 days jail; up to $750 fine
Device offense companion	C.R.S. 18-9-305 (petty offense first / Class 5 felony recidivist)	C.R.S. 18-9-305 (same)

The bifurcation matters in practice. A non-participant who secretly records a Colorado phone call faces felony exposure. A non-participant who hides a microphone in a conference room and records an in-person conversation faces misdemeanor exposure. The audio content can be identical; the criminal charge tracks the medium.

Recording Phone Calls in Colorado Under C.R.S. 18-9-303

C.R.S. 18-9-303 is Colorado's wiretap statute. It makes it a Class 6 felony for any person who is not a sender or receiver of a telephone or telegraph communication to knowingly overhear, read, take, copy, or record (or attempt to do so, or aid, employ, or conspire to do so) a telephone, telegraph, or electronic communication without the consent of either a sender or a receiver.

Consent of either the sender or any one receiver is a complete defense. That single statutory hook is what makes Colorado a one-party-consent state for audio communications transmitted by wire or electronic means. The statute targets the medium (telephone, telegraph, electronic) rather than the location of the participants.

The reach of 18-9-303 is broad. It covers landline calls, cellular calls, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calls, and electronic communications including text and email transmissions. A participant in the call (sender or receiver) may record without telling the other party.

A non-participant who records without consent of either side commits a Class 6 felony. Presumptive imprisonment under C.R.S. 18-1.3-401 is 1 year to 18 months in the Colorado Department of Corrections, with mandatory parole of one year and a fine range of $1,000 to $100,000. Probation is generally available for first-time non-dangerous offenders.

C.R.S. 18-9-305 reaches the upstream device pipeline. Knowing manufacture, sale, purchase, or possession of an instrument or device designed or commonly used for wiretapping or eavesdropping, with intent to use unlawfully, is a petty offense on first conviction (up to 10 days jail; up to $300 fine) and a Class 5 felony on second or subsequent conviction (presumptive 1 to 3 years prison; $1,000 to $100,000 fine; two years mandatory parole). Ordinary smartphone audio recording is not "designed or commonly used for wiretapping" for purposes of 18-9-305 standing alone.

Business Call Recording

Colorado businesses can record calls with one party's consent for quality-assurance, training, or compliance purposes. Common methods of obtaining consent include verbal confirmation before the call begins, a recorded announcement ("This call may be recorded for quality purposes"), or a periodic beep tone during the call.

While Colorado law does not require these notices for a participating party, many businesses use them as a best practice, especially when callers may sit in two-party-consent jurisdictions. Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission consumer-protection regimes also apply when the call is a marketing solicitation or a debt-collection contact.

Recording In-Person Conversations Under C.R.S. 18-9-304

C.R.S. 18-9-304 is Colorado's eavesdropping statute. It makes it a Class 2 misdemeanor for any person not visibly present during a conversation or discussion to knowingly overhear or record (or attempt to do so, or aid, employ, or conspire to do so) the conversation without the consent of at least one of the principal parties.

Consent of at least one principal party is a complete defense. That is the statutory hook that makes Colorado a one-party-consent state for in-person audio. The "not visibly present" element targets hidden microphones, concealed listeners, and third parties not visible to the speakers.

The statute pairs with 18-9-303 to cover the full audio universe with bifurcated penalties. In-person conversations not transmitted by wire fall under 18-9-304. Wire, telephone, and electronic transmissions fall under 18-9-303. Class 2 misdemeanor exposure under post-SB 21-271 sentencing is up to 120 days in jail and up to a $750 fine under C.R.S. 18-1.3-501. Pre-2022 references to a 12-month maximum for the misdemeanor are stale.

A participant who records his or her own in-person conversation without disclosing the recording is not eavesdropping (visibly present and a principal party). The same participant is not wiretapping either, because there is no wire or electronic transmission to intercept. One-party consent is therefore lawful in both subsystems.

Offense	Statute	Classification	Jail / Prison	Fine
Wiretapping	C.R.S. 18-9-303	Class 6 felony	1 to 18 months prison	$1,000 to $100,000
Eavesdropping	C.R.S. 18-9-304	Class 2 misdemeanor	Up to 120 days	Up to $750
Device offense (first)	C.R.S. 18-9-305	Petty offense	Up to 10 days	Up to $300
Device offense (recidivist)	C.R.S. 18-9-305	Class 5 felony	1 to 3 years prison	$1,000 to $100,000
Voyeurism (first)	C.R.S. 18-3-405.6	Class 1 misdemeanor	Up to 364 days	Up to $1,000
Voyeurism (subsequent or minor)	C.R.S. 18-3-405.6	Class 6 felony	1 to 18 months prison	$1,000 to $100,000
Intimate-image disclosure	C.R.S. 18-7-107	Class 1 misdemeanor	Up to 364 days	Up to $1,000
Intimate-image disclosure (imminent threat)	C.R.S. 18-7-107	Class 6 felony	1 to 18 months prison	$1,000 to $100,000

Recording the Police in Colorado: C.R.S. 16-3-311, 13-21-128, and the Frasier-to-Irizarry Progression

Colorado has the most protective record-the-police framework in the Tenth Circuit. The state combines an express statutory right to record with a no-qualified-immunity civil cause of action and TWO distinct money remedies.

C.R.S. 16-3-311 (originally HB 15-1290 (2015), strengthened by HB 21-1250 (2021)) gives every person a statutory right to lawfully record any incident involving a peace officer and to maintain custody and ownership of the recording. A peace officer may temporarily seize a recording device only when (1) the officer has probable cause to believe the recorder committed a crime to which the recording relates AND the recording is reasonably necessary for prosecution, OR (2) the officer has a reasonable, articulable, good-faith belief that immediate seizure is necessary to prevent the destruction of the recording while a search warrant is obtained. Any consent-less, warrant-less seizure must be followed by application for a search warrant within seventy-two hours.

Two Distinct Civil Remedies

Two distinct civil remedies follow when police interfere with the right to record. They are cumulative; do not collapse them.

Remedy	Trigger	Damages	Defendant	Qualified Immunity
C.R.S. 16-3-311 own-statute	Peace officer seizure, damage, or destruction of a lawful recording or device, or interference with the right to record	$500 per damaged or destroyed recording, plus replacement value of the device, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs, plus punitive damages	Law enforcement agency	Not raised; statute is a direct civil-remedy provision
C.R.S. 13-21-128 (SB 20-217 / HB 21-1250)	Peace officer, under color of law, deprives any person of state-constitutional rights (including failure to intervene)	$15,000 minimum statutory damages, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs, plus actual and punitive damages in appropriate cases	Officer's employing local-government agency (indemnification); officer personally liable up to 5% of judgment or $25,000 (whichever is less) on a bad-faith finding	NO qualified-immunity defense

The 13-21-128 cause of action is broader than the 16-3-311 right itself. It reaches any state-constitutional rights deprivation by a peace officer acting under color of law. A plaintiff whose recording rights are violated can plead both remedies in the same complaint, with 16-3-311 supplying the per-recording, replacement-value, and punitive layer and 13-21-128 supplying the $15,000 floor and the no-qualified-immunity doctrinal posture. The statute of limitations for 13-21-128 is two years from accrual.

The Tenth Circuit Frasier-to-Irizarry Progression

On the federal side, the Tenth Circuit posture is a Frasier-to-Irizarry progression.

Frasier v. Evans, 992 F.3d 1003 (10th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 427 (2021), arose from a Denver Police Department parking-lot incident in August 2014. A citizen used his tablet to record officers using force during a drug arrest. Officers detained him and demanded the device. The District of Colorado denied qualified immunity, but the Tenth Circuit reversed and granted qualified immunity to the Denver officers, holding that any First Amendment right to record police was not clearly established as of August 2014. The panel expressly bypassed the merits of the First Amendment question and resolved the case solely on qualified-immunity grounds. Frasier did NOT recognize a clearly established right; it declined to decide the constitutional question.

Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022), is the panel decision that completes the Colorado record-the-police picture. Abade Irizarry, a citizen-journalist, recorded a Lakewood, Colorado DUI traffic stop in May 2019. Officer Ahmed Yehia interfered with the recording by parking a cruiser between Irizarry and the stop, shining a flashlight into Irizarry's camera, and driving toward him. The Tenth Circuit reversed the grant of qualified immunity and held that the First Amendment right to film police performing their official duties in public was clearly established in the Tenth Circuit as of May 2019. The Irizarry panel resolved the question Frasier had bypassed.

Together, Frasier and Irizarry produce a temporal progression. In the Tenth Circuit, the right to record police was NOT clearly established for pre-May 2019 conduct (Frasier qualified immunity), but IS clearly established for May 2019 onward conduct (Irizarry). For Colorado plaintiffs whose recording rights are violated today, the cleanest pathway is state court under C.R.S. 13-21-128 (no qualified immunity) plus C.R.S. 16-3-311's own-statute remedy, with the federal Section 1983 / Irizarry claim layered on top.

Practical Limits

The 16-3-311 right is not absolute. Officers may give lawful orders to step back when a recording would interfere with a lawful arrest, scene security, or ongoing investigation. Recorders cannot trespass to get a better angle and cannot physically interfere with officers performing their duties. Following a lawful order to move back does not waive the right to continue recording from a different vantage.

Hidden Cameras and the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

Colorado's hidden-camera analysis splits across three legal layers. The criminal anchor is C.R.S. 18-3-405.6 (invasion of privacy for sexual gratification). The audio overlay is C.R.S. 18-9-304. The civil layer is the common-law tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

C.R.S. 18-3-405.6 makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor (first offense) or Class 6 felony (subsequent offense, or where the depicted person is a minor) to knowingly observe or take a photograph of another person's intimate parts (as defined in C.R.S. 18-3-401(2)) without consent in a situation where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and where the act is for the purpose of the actor's sexual gratification.

If a hidden camera also captures audio of an in-person conversation, eavesdropping analysis applies on top of the visual statute. C.R.S. 18-9-304 reaches surreptitious audio capture by a person not visibly present, with the one-party-consent defense available if any principal party consents.

The civil layer is the common-law tort of invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion. The Colorado Court of Appeals formally adopted the tort in Doe v. High-Tech Institute, Inc., 972 P.2d 1060 (Colo. App. 1998), and the Colorado Supreme Court recognized the broader privacy-tort framework in Robert C. Ozer, P.C. v. Borquez, 940 P.2d 371 (Colo. 1997). A plaintiff must show (1) intentional intrusion, physical or otherwise, on plaintiff's solitude or seclusion or on private affairs or concerns, and (2) such intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

Surreptitious audio or video recording in a place where the plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy can satisfy the intrusion element without physical entry. Damages include actual and emotional-distress damages, with punitive damages available on a beyond-reasonable-doubt showing of fraud, malice, or willful and wanton conduct under C.R.S. 13-21-102. The personal-injury limitations period is two years under C.R.S. 13-80-102.

Concrete Examples

An outward-facing Ring doorbell on a homeowner's own front porch is generally outside C.R.S. 18-3-405.6. A public-facing porch is not a private place during ordinary visitor traffic, and the homeowner is typically a participant or principal party for any porch conversation under 18-9-304. Audio capture of conversations the homeowner participates in is lawful one-party recording.

An indoor camera placed in a guest's bedroom or bathroom without consent is a textbook 18-3-405.6 prosecution if the image captures intimate parts. Even without intimate-parts capture, surreptitious indoor video in a private guest space supports an intrusion-upon-seclusion claim.

A nanny cam in a shared family room is generally outside 18-3-405.6 because the shared space is not a private place for the family members who use it. However, the audio it captures can still trigger 18-9-304 analysis if the conversations recorded are private and the camera operator is not a principal party. A nanny cam that records the nanny talking to a friend on the nanny's own phone, with the homeowner not present, is a 18-9-304 problem.

Dashcams with cabin-facing audio capture and rideshare-driver recordings inside the vehicle cabin are analyzed under C.R.S. 18-9-304 audio. One-party consent is typically satisfied by the driver as a participant or principal party. Passengers generally do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from the driver who is part of the conversation.

Landlord-tenant scenarios are addressed in the Colorado Division of Real Estate's audio-and-video surveillance guidance, which limits landlord audio recording inside rental units. There is no general all-party-consent-for-video rule in Colorado: ordinary video without audio in non-private spaces is governed primarily by common-law privacy torts. For deeper treatment, see Is it illegal to video record someone without their consent and Colorado surveillance camera laws.

Recording Phone Calls Across State Lines

A Colorado caller who is a party to a phone call may record the audio under C.R.S. 18-9-303 with no notice to the other party. The complication is the interstate call.

Eleven jurisdictions impose all-party consent for at least some recordings of in-person or telephonic conversations:

• California (Cal. Penal Code 632)
• Florida (Fla. Stat. 934.03)
• Illinois (720 ILCS 5/14-2)
• Maryland (Md. Code Cts. and Jud. Proc. 10-402)
• Massachusetts (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 14)
• Montana (Mont. Code 45-8-213)
• New Hampshire (N.H. RSA 570-A:2)
• Oregon (Or. Rev. Stat. 165.540)
• Pennsylvania (18 Pa. C.S. 5703)
• Washington (Wash. Rev. Code 9.73.030)
• Connecticut (Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d for civil purposes)

When a Colorado call crosses into one of those states, the conservative posture is to comply with the stricter regime: announce the recording on the record before continuing. Federal one-party consent under 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) sets the floor, but the more protective state law typically governs the actor in question. Cross-link: two-party consent states.

Federal ECPA contains a separate carve-out at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) for one-party recordings made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. Colorado's 18-9-303 and 18-9-304 do NOT contain a tortious-purpose limitation. A one-party recording in Colorado is lawful under state law even if the purpose is to embarrass or harass, subject only to common-law tort exposure (intrusion upon seclusion under Doe v. High-Tech Institute) and to the federal ECPA carve-out for interstate calls.

Recording at Work in Colorado

Colorado does not require employer notice for one-party recording of wire, oral, or electronic conversations under C.R.S. 18-9-303 and 18-9-304. A Colorado employer who is a party to a workplace conversation may record without informing the other party for the conversation itself.

Federal labor law adds a constraint. The National Labor Relations Board's decision in Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) replaced the Boeing categorical work-rule framework. To defend a no-recording or no-photography rule against a Section 8(a)(1) facial challenge, an employer must show the rule advances a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a more narrowly tailored rule. Stericycle remains binding Board precedent.

NLRB Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued GC 25-05 on February 14, 2025, rescinding several prior General Counsel memos and reinstating Boeing-era enforcement priorities. Stericycle still controls Board law; only the General Counsel's enforcement posture narrowed. 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) (duty to bargain in good faith), building on Bartlett-Collins Co., 237 NLRB 770 (1978). GC 25-07 is narrow prosecutorial guidance limited to formal bargaining sessions; it does not address general workplace recording outside the bargaining context.

Colorado is not a right-to-work state at the state level, so NLRA Section 7 protected concerted activity standards apply broadly to private-sector workforces. Lockheed Martin Space Systems Waterton, Ball Aerospace Boulder, UCHealth (nonsupervisory), Centura Health, hospitality and grocery workers statewide, and ski-resort operations in Vail, Aspen, and Breckenridge are covered. Workplaces with collective-bargaining relationships (UFCW Local 7, SEIU Local 105, AFSCME state and county locals, CWA, IBEW) are subject to GC 25-07 at the bargaining table.

Layered on top, HB 24-1130's Colorado Privacy Act biometric amendments (active July 1, 2025) impose affirmative-consent and policy requirements where employers extract voiceprints or faceprints from recorded audio or video, regardless of any one-party recording-law analysis. For broader nationwide treatment, see Can an employer record conversations without consent.

Body-Worn Cameras and Police Recording in Colorado

Colorado's peace-officer body-worn camera framework is codified at C.R.S. 24-31-902 in Article 31, Part 9 of Title 24 (Law Enforcement Integrity). The statute was created by SB 20-217 (signed June 19, 2020) and amended by HB 21-1250 (2021) and HB 22-1003 (2022).

By July 1, 2023, all local law-enforcement agencies in Colorado and the Colorado State Patrol were required to provide body-worn cameras for each peace officer who interacts with members of the public. A peace officer must wear and activate a body-worn camera when responding to a call for service, entering premises for law-enforcement purposes, conducting a welfare check (excluding motorist assists), or during any consensual or non-consensual interaction with the public initiated by the officer for law-enforcement or investigatory purposes.

The agency must release unedited body-worn camera and dash camera recordings of incidents involving complaints of peace-officer misconduct within twenty-one days after receiving the complaint or request, subject to limited redactions for victim, juvenile, and ongoing-investigation protections. Where an officer fails to activate a required body-worn camera or tampers with footage, statements or conduct that should have been recorded are subject to a rebuttable presumption of inadmissibility under C.R.S. 13-25-130. The Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (P.O.S.T.) may revoke or suspend the officer's certification for intentional failure with intent to conceal unlawful or inappropriate actions.

Separately, C.R.S. 24-31-1303 (HB 22-1245) restricts law-enforcement use of facial-recognition services for ongoing surveillance, real-time identification, or persistent tracking. The statute requires a warrant or exigent circumstance plus accountability reports, training, performance disclosures, and human review of facial-recognition-service-generated leads. C.R.S. 24-31-1303 governs the analytical layer applied to recorded video; it sits in Article 31, Part 13 of Title 24, not Part 9, and it is not a body-camera authority.

Colorado Privacy Act Biometric Provisions (Active July 1, 2025)

HB 24-1130 (Privacy of Biometric Identifiers and Data) amends the Colorado Privacy Act, codified at C.R.S. 6-1-1301 et seq., to add biometric-data protections. Signed by Governor Jared Polis on May 31, 2024 (Chapter 313, Session Laws of Colorado 2024), the statute became effective July 1, 2025. It is now active law.

This is the second Colorado differentiator after the bifurcated criminal regime. It directly affects how recorded audio and video can be processed downstream.

Coverage extends to biometric identifiers: retina or iris scans, fingerprints, voiceprints, faceprints, hand or face geometry, and other unique biological, physical, or behavioral patterns. A controller must obtain affirmative consent before collecting or processing biometric identifiers. The statute imposes data-minimization and retention-limit policies, requires a deletion protocol, and prohibits the sale, lease, trade, or other commercial transfer of biometric identifiers and biometric data.

The Colorado Privacy Act's volume threshold is removed for biometric provisions. Any entity that controls or processes biometric data of any Colorado resident is subject to the biometric requirements regardless of the 100,000-consumer or 25,000-consumer thresholds. Biometric protections extend to employees broadly defined to include full-time, part-time, on-call, contractor, subcontractor, intern, and fellow workers. The Colorado Attorney General enforces the Colorado Privacy Act framework.

The practical implication is critical. Voiceprint and facial-recognition extraction from recorded audio or video triggers HB 24-1130 affirmative-consent and policy requirements regardless of any one-party recording-law analysis under C.R.S. 18-9-303 or 18-9-304. Recording your own employee's voice for a quality-assurance call is one rule. Extracting that employee's voiceprint to feed an AI system is another rule, and the Colorado Privacy Act biometric layer governs the second step independently.

Colorado Deepfake, AI, and Intimate-Image Layer

Colorado has the most aggressive intimate-digital-depiction regime in the Mountain West after SB 25-288. Signed by Governor Polis on June 2, 2025 (Chapter 339, Session Laws of Colorado 2025), the statute became effective August 6, 2025. It is now active law.

SB 25-288 reframed C.R.S. 18-7-107 from the older "posting a private image" criminal scheme to "disclosing a private intimate image or intimate digital depiction," and expressly extends the criminal offense to AI-generated and digitally altered intimate imagery. Knowingly disclosing or threatening to disclose, by any means, a private intimate image or intimate digital depiction of a depicted person who is identifiable, where the depicted person had a reasonable expectation of privacy and did not consent, is a Class 1 misdemeanor (up to 364 days in jail and up to $1,000 fine). The offense is elevated to a Class 6 felony when the disclosure poses an imminent and serious threat to the depicted person's safety (1 to 18 months prison; $1,000 to $100,000 fine; one year mandatory parole).

The statute carves out technology providers, content addressing matters of public concern, parody, satire, and good-faith disclosures. SB 25-288 also creates a parallel civil cause of action with damages including the defendant's monetary gain from the disclosure, plus actual damages OR liquidated damages of $150,000 (plaintiff's election), plus exemplary damages, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs. (Cite the bill itself, Chapter 339 of the Session Laws of Colorado 2025, alongside the criminal companion C.R.S. 18-7-107, while the civil-action codification section is independently confirmed.)

SB 24-205, the Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act (Consumer Protections for Interactions with Artificial Intelligence), was signed May 17, 2024 and became effective February 1, 2026. It is now active law. The Act requires developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used to make consequential decisions concerning Colorado residents to use reasonable care to protect consumers from any known or reasonably foreseeable risks of algorithmic discrimination. It imposes risk-management policy, impact-assessment, and consumer-disclosure requirements. The Colorado Attorney General has exclusive enforcement authority. SB 24-205 is not a recording-specific statute, but surreptitious recording feeding into AI biometric or voice-cloning systems can implicate this statute alongside HB 24-1130's biometric-consent regime.

HB 24-1147 (Candidate Election Deepfake Disclosures) is also active law. Distribution of a communication that includes an undisclosed or improperly disclosed deepfake (AI-generated synthetic media) of a candidate for elective office, with knowledge or reckless disregard of the falsity, is prohibited. The required disclosure reads: "This [image / audio / video / multimedia] has been edited and depicts speech or conduct that falsely appears to be authentic or truthful." Civil penalties run at least $100 per violation involving unpaid advertising and at least 10 percent of the amount paid or spent for paid communications. Complaints are filed with the Colorado Secretary of State and adjudicated by a hearing officer.

Colorado victims of nonconsensual intimate imagery or deepfake recording have several layered remedies: the SB 25-288 criminal and civil paths under C.R.S. 18-7-107, the Colorado Privacy Act biometric provisions under HB 24-1130, the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act notice-and-takedown procedure (discussed below), and the DMCA Takedown Notice Generator for copyrighted content.

Federal Overlay: ECPA, FCC, NLRB, DOJ, and the TAKE IT DOWN Act

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). Colorado is permitted to and does follow the one-party rule under its bifurcated structure. C.R.S. 18-9-303 covers wire and electronic; C.R.S. 18-9-304 covers in-person. For broader treatment, see United States recording laws.

FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (released February 8, 2024) clarified that AI-generated voice in calls qualifies as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. 227, and requires prior express consent. The ruling is in force as of May 2026; no vacatur or rescission has issued. Colorado consumers receiving AI-cloned-voice robocalls have a federal TCPA cause of action under FCC 24-17 plus enforcement support from the Colorado Attorney General's Consumer Protection Section under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, C.R.S. 6-1-105 et seq.

By contrast, FCC 24-24 (the One-to-One Consent Rule that amended 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(9)) was VACATED by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025), with mandate issued April 30, 2025. The Eleventh Circuit held the FCC exceeded its statutory authority. The pre-amendment "prior express consent" standard reverted into effect and applies nationally including to Colorado. The "logically and topically associated" restriction is no longer in force. 47 C.F.R. 64.501 was REMOVED effective November 20, 2017 by the FCC's Modernizing Common Carrier Rules order, 82 Fed. Reg. 48,766 (Oct. 20, 2017). Older Colorado guidance that points to 47 C.F.R. 64.501 is stale.

DOJ Justice Manual 9-7.302, based on 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(c), reflects DOJ procedures for warrantless consensual monitoring with one party's consent. In Colorado federal investigations (the District of Colorado and the U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado), federal agents may record with one party's consent without a warrant, subject to JM internal-approval rules for sensitive cases involving Members of Congress, attorney-client situations, or members of the news media. The most recent guideline issuance by the Attorney General was May 30, 2002.

The TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146, 119th Cong., Pub. L. No. 119-12) was signed into federal law on May 19, 2025. It establishes a federal criminal prohibition on knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI-generated digital forgeries (deepfakes). The criminal provisions took effect on the signing date. Covered platforms must implement a notice-and-takedown procedure with a 48-hour response window from valid notice; platform compliance takes effect May 19, 2026. Colorado victims of nonconsensual intimate imagery or deepfake recording can invoke the federal notice-and-takedown procedure as of May 19, 2026, alongside Colorado's existing intimate-images statute (C.R.S. 18-7-107, post-SB 25-288 reframe), the Colorado Privacy Act biometric provisions (HB 24-1130), and common-law privacy torts.

Background sectoral overlays apply to Colorado recordings in regulated contexts. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), 47 U.S.C. 1001 to 1010, imposes capability requirements on telecommunications carriers and broadband providers serving Colorado. HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules (45 C.F.R. Part 164) apply to Colorado healthcare providers, plans, and clearinghouses (UCHealth, Children's Hospital Colorado, Denver Health, HealthONE, Centura Health, Kaiser Permanente Colorado). HIPAA does not preempt Colorado's one-party consent default for patient-side recording but constrains provider-side recording and disclosure of protected health information. Debt collectors contacting Colorado consumers are subject to CFPB Regulation F (12 C.F.R. 1006.6), the FDCPA (15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.), and the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (C.R.S. 5-16-101 et seq.). FTC v. Ring (2023, settled $5.8 million) is relevant to Colorado households using cloud-camera vendors.

Using Recordings as Evidence in Colorado Court

Recordings made legally under Colorado's one-party consent law are generally admissible as evidence. Courts will still apply the standard evidentiary filters.

Authentication requires a showing that the recording is genuine and unaltered. Relevance requires that the recording relate to issues in the case. Hearsay rules can exclude some recorded statements unless an exception applies (party admissions, statements against interest, present sense impressions, excited utterances). The Rule 403 prejudice-versus-probative balance can exclude an otherwise admissible recording if its prejudicial effect substantially outweighs its evidentiary value.

In criminal cases, illegally obtained recordings are typically inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule and the Colorado statutory suppression framework. Recordings made in violation of C.R.S. 18-9-303 or 18-9-304 are also subject to civil exposure under federal Wiretap Act civil remedies (18 U.S.C. 2520) and Colorado's common-law privacy torts.

In civil cases, evidentiary rules are more flexible, but courts may still exclude illegally obtained evidence where public-policy concerns or statutory suppression doctrines apply. Recordings of police misconduct gathered under the C.R.S. 16-3-311 statutory right are presumptively admissible in civil-rights litigation under both 13-21-128 and 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Wearable Recording Devices in Colorado

Wearable recording devices including smart glasses, body cameras, and AI voice recorders operate under the same one-party consent rules as any other recording device in Colorado. If you are part of the conversation, you can legally record audio using a wearable device without notifying others under C.R.S. 18-9-303 (wire / electronic) or C.R.S. 18-9-304 (in-person).

Workers facing a hostile work environment may find wearable recorders useful for documenting harassment or other workplace misconduct as it happens. Audio captured during conversations the worker participates in is lawful one-party recording.

Wearable devices that capture biometric data add a layer. Under HB 24-1130 (active July 1, 2025), employers must obtain affirmative, informed consent before collecting biometric identifiers from employees. Smart glasses equipped with facial-recognition software capture facial geometry, which qualifies as a biometric identifier under the amended Colorado Privacy Act. An employer that issues smart glasses to workers and processes facial geometry data without first securing written consent violates HB 24-1130 regardless of whether the underlying audio recording is lawful one-party capture under 18-9-303 or 18-9-304.

Employers should establish a clear wearable recording device policy that addresses both audio recording and biometric data collection. The audio rule is one analysis; the biometric rule is a separate analysis under HB 24-1130; both must be satisfied.

Specific Situations

Can I Record My Landlord in Colorado?

Yes, if you are part of the conversation. Recording interactions with landlords can document verbal agreements about repairs, harassment or unlawful entry, disputes about lease terms, or evidence for tenant-rights cases. Audio recording inside a leased rental unit by a tenant who is a principal party is one-party-consent lawful under C.R.S. 18-9-304. Landlords installing audio surveillance inside rental units face the Colorado Division of Real Estate's audio-and-video surveillance limits.

Can I Record My Doctor in Colorado?

Yes, you can record medical appointments you attend. Recording can preserve complex medical instructions, document informed-consent discussions, and support sharing information with family caregivers. Note that the medical facility may have its own internal policy about recording. Your recording is legal under Colorado law, but a private facility could ask you to stop or to leave. HIPAA does not block patient-side recording.

Can I Record CPS Workers?

Yes. Child Protective Services workers are government employees, and you can record your interactions with them as long as you are participating in the conversation. The same one-party rule under 18-9-303 / 18-9-304 applies.

Can I Record My Ex-Spouse or Co-Parent?

Yes, during conversations you are a party to. This is common in custody disputes. Do not record children's private conversations to which you are not a party, and do not direct children to secretly record the other parent. Family courts can view such recordings as manipulative even if technically lawful.

Can I Use a Dashcam in Colorado?

Yes. Dashcams are legal in Colorado. Mount the camera so it does not obstruct the driver's view. Audio recording inside the vehicle follows one-party consent rules under C.R.S. 18-9-304, with the driver typically a principal party. Many insurance carriers offer dashcam discounts. See also dashcam legality and privacy laws.

Recent Legislative Changes

• SB 21-271 (effective March 1, 2022): Restructured Colorado misdemeanor sentencing. Eavesdropping under C.R.S. 18-9-304 is now a Class 2 misdemeanor with up to 120 days jail and up to $750 fine.
• HB 23-1293 (effective October 1, 2023): Reclassified possession of eavesdropping devices under C.R.S. 18-9-302 as a petty offense.
• HB 24-1130 (effective July 1, 2025): Amended the Colorado Privacy Act to require affirmative consent for collection of biometric identifiers including voiceprints and facial geometry.
• SB 25-288 (effective August 6, 2025): Reframed C.R.S. 18-7-107 to cover AI-generated and digitally altered intimate imagery; created a parallel civil cause of action with $150,000 liquidated damages.
• SB 24-205 (effective February 1, 2026): Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act, imposing reasonable-care duties on developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems.

More Colorado Laws

• Colorado Sexting Laws
• Colorado Hit and Run Laws
• Colorado Statute of Limitations
• Colorado Child Support Laws
• Colorado Car Seat Laws
• Colorado Dog Bite Laws
• Colorado Lemon Laws
• Colorado Whistleblower Laws

Colorado Recording Laws by Topic

Each of the 12 pages below covers a specific Colorado recording-law context in greater depth than this hub can. Use them to drill into the rule that applies to your situation.

• Colorado Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
• Colorado Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use
• Colorado Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Cameras, Privacy, and Rights
• Colorado Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Provider Rules
• Colorado Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent and Interstate Rules
• Colorado Laws on Recording Police: Rights, Protections, and Body Cameras
• Colorado Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Limits, and Exceptions
• Colorado School Recording Laws: Classrooms, IEP Meetings, and Surveillance
• Colorado Security Camera Laws: Residential, Commercial, and Privacy Rules
• Colorado Video Recording Laws: What Is Legal and What Is Not
• Colorado Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections
• Colorado Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights