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

Colorado is a one-party consent state for audio recording. Under C.R.S. 18-9-303 (wiretap) and C.R.S. 18-9-304 (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

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

Recording in-person conversations in Colorado

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 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.

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.

Penalties for illegal recording in Colorado

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

On the civil side, two remedies exist for police-related violations. C.R.S. 13-21-128 (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. C.R.S. 13-21-131 (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 (18 U.S.C. 2520) and the Colorado intrusion-upon-seclusion tort recognized in Doe v. High-Tech Institute, Inc., 972 P.2d 1060 (Colo. App. 1998) and Robert C. Ozer, P.C. v. Borquez, 940 P.2d 371 (Colo. 1997).

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 any of three 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; (2) probable cause that the recorder committed a crime and the recording constitutes evidence needed for prosecution; or (3) 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.

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. C.R.S. 24-31-1303 (SB 22-113) separately restricts law-enforcement facial-recognition for ongoing surveillance, requiring a warrant or exigent circumstance.

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

• Colorado Audio Recording Laws
• Colorado Phone Call Recording Laws
• Colorado Video Recording Laws
• Colorado Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws
• Colorado Dashcam Laws

By place or relationship

• Colorado Laws on Recording Police
• Colorado Laws on Recording in Public
• Colorado Workplace Recording Laws
• Colorado Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws
• Colorado Medical Recording Laws
• Colorado School Recording Laws
• Colorado Security Camera Laws

More Colorado laws

• Colorado Alimony Laws
• Colorado At-Will Employment Laws
• Colorado Child Custody Laws
• Colorado Data Privacy Laws
• Colorado Landlord-Tenant 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.