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

Colorado is a one-party consent state for audio recording. That means a participant in any phone call or in-person conversation may record it without notifying the other parties. The rule comes from Colorado's wiretap and eavesdropping statutes in the Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S. 18-9-303 and C.R.S. 18-9-304).

When someone outside the conversation records it without any party's consent, that is a Class 2 misdemeanor. It also gives rise to civil liability, meaning the recorder can be sued.

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

Colorado's eavesdropping statute covers in-person conversations. 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 (C.R.S. 18-9-304). A principal party is one of the people taking part in the conversation.

The consent of one principal party is a complete defense. So a participant who records his or her own conversation is fully protected under this statute. What the statute targets is hidden microphones, concealed listeners, and third parties the speakers cannot see.

For example, recording a face-to-face meeting with your landlord while you are present and taking part is lawful. Hiding a recorder and leaving before the other party arrives, to capture a private conversation they have without you, would violate the eavesdropping statute (C.R.S. 18-9-304).

A violation carries up to 120 days in jail and up to a $750 fine (C.R.S. 18-1.3-501). That has been the sentencing range since SB 21-271 took effect on March 1, 2022. In Colorado bill names, SB means a Senate bill and HB a House bill. Older references to a 12-month maximum, from before 2022, are out of date.

Recording phone calls in Colorado

Colorado's wiretap statute 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 (C.R.S. 18-9-303). 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 a call across state lines, the cautious approach is to follow the stricter state's rule. If you are unsure which side controls, our recording consent checker lets you compare the two states' consent rules before you dial.

Thirteen states impose all-party consent for some recordings, meaning every person in the conversation must consent. They are California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, Connecticut (for civil purposes), and Nevada, which requires every party's consent to record a phone call. Connecticut's all-party rule covers telephone calls and is enforced through civil lawsuits.

In Delaware two statutes conflict. One lets a participant record (11 Del. C. 2402(c)(4)), while the other requires everyone's consent (11 Del. C. 1335(a)(4)), and no controlling court decision resolves which governs. When a Colorado resident calls into one of those thirteen states, announcing the recording protects against legal exposure under that state's law.

Oregon is a partial exception: only one participant's consent is needed to record a telephone call there (ORS 165.540). In-person conversations and video calls there require that every participant be specifically informed of the recording (ORS 165.535 and 165.540). See two-party consent states for the full list.

For deeper treatment, see Colorado Phone Call Recording Laws.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Four layers of law can apply to a hidden camera in Colorado. Two are criminal invasion-of-privacy statutes. The third is the eavesdropping statute, which applies on top when the camera also records audio. The fourth is common-law privacy torts; a tort is a civil wrong, meaning a breach of a duty to another person, and the person harmed may be able to sue for it.

The base offense is criminal invasion of privacy, a Class 2 misdemeanor. It covers knowingly observing or photographing another person's intimate parts without consent, where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. "Photograph" includes video and a live feed, and no sexual motive has to be proved (C.R.S. 18-7-801).

A second statute covers the same conduct when it is done for the observer's own sexual gratification. It 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 (C.R.S. 18-3-405.6).

The felony tier applies when the defendant has a prior conviction for unlawful sexual behavior as defined in C.R.S. 16-22-102(9). It also applies when the depicted person is under 15 and the defendant is at least 4 years older. When a hidden camera also captures audio, the eavesdropping statute applies on top, unless a principal party consented (C.R.S. 18-9-304).

An outward-facing doorbell camera on your own porch is generally lawful. That is because the porch is not a private space, and Colorado's eavesdropping law reaches only conversations held with a reasonable expectation of privacy (People v. Blehm, 623 P.2d 411 (Colo. App. 1980)). Colorado law also allows audio devices on your own premises for security purposes if you give reasonable notice to the public, such as a visible sign (C.R.S. 18-9-305(1)).

A hidden camera in a guest's bedroom or bathroom that captures intimate parts is criminal invasion of privacy (C.R.S. 18-7-801). It becomes the more serious sexual-gratification offense if it was done for that purpose (C.R.S. 18-3-405.6). Such a camera can also support an intrusion-upon-seclusion civil claim, even if no intimate parts are captured.

A nanny cam in a shared family room generally falls outside both hidden-camera statutes (C.R.S. 18-7-801 and 18-3-405.6), because a shared living space is not a private location for family members. Its audio can still implicate the eavesdropping statute if the homeowner is not a principal party (C.R.S. 18-9-304).

Audio surveillance of a conversation you are not part of needs one participant's consent (C.R.S. 18-9-304). The exception is a device used on your own premises for security or business purposes with reasonable notice to the public (C.R.S. 18-9-305(1)). The Colorado Division of Real Estate has applied that rule to sellers recording during home showings.

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, wiretapping and eavesdropping, are now Class 2 misdemeanors. Eavesdropping became a Class 2 misdemeanor under SB 21-271 on March 1, 2022. Wiretapping was a Class 6 felony until HB 23-1293 made it a Class 2 misdemeanor for offenses on or after October 1, 2023.

On the civil side, two remedies exist for police-related violations. The first covers a peace officer who unlawfully destroys, damages or seizes a recording or device, intentionally interferes with lawful recording, retaliates for it, or refuses to return the device (C.R.S. 13-21-128).

Under that law, the owner first files an affidavit with the officer's employing agency. The affidavit claims the device's replacement cost and $500 for each destroyed or damaged recording. The agency then has 30 days to pay or deny.

After a denial, the owner may sue the agency for actual damages, the replacement value, $500 per destroyed or damaged recording, and filing costs. The court may add attorney fees and punitive damages up to $15,000 if it finds the denial was made in bad faith. Punitive damages are money awarded on top of actual damages.

The second remedy is a broader constitutional cause of action, meaning a right to sue a peace officer who violates rights under the state constitution's bill of rights (C.R.S. 13-21-131, enacted by SB 20-217). The remedies it allows are legal or equitable relief, plus attorney fees that the court must award to a plaintiff who wins, with no dollar floor or ceiling. Equitable relief is a court order to do or stop doing something, instead of paying money.

Under this second law, the employing agency indemnifies the officer. If the employer determines that the officer did not act on a good-faith and reasonable belief that the action was lawful, the officer is personally liable for 5% of the judgment or settlement or $25,000, whichever is less (C.R.S. 13-21-131).

For recordings that do not involve police, the risk of being sued comes from the federal Wiretap Act's civil remedy (18 U.S.C. 2520). It also comes from the Colorado intrusion-upon-seclusion tort recognized in Doe v. High-Tech Institute, Inc., 972 P.2d 1060 (Colo. App. 1998).

A separate tort, public disclosure of private facts, applies if a lawfully made recording is later published to a wide audience. It was recognized in Robert C. Ozer, P.C. v. Borquez, 940 P.2d 371 (Colo. 1997).

Recording the police in Colorado

The Tenth Circuit is the federal court of appeals for the region that includes Colorado. Within that region, Colorado offers the most protective record-the-police framework: an express state statutory right, two civil remedies that can both apply, and a clear federal ruling.

Colorado law gives every person an explicit right to record any incident involving a peace officer. It also gives the person the right to keep custody and ownership of the recording (C.R.S. 16-3-311, enacted by HB 15-1290 in 2015 and unamended since).

A peace officer may temporarily seize a device without consent on either of two grounds. The first is a reasonable, articulable, good-faith belief that seizure is necessary to prevent destruction of the evidentiary recording while a search warrant is obtained. The second is a life-safety exigency. A warrant is court authorization, most often for law enforcement, to conduct a search or make an arrest.

Either way, the seizure itself is time-capped. The statute lets the officer hold the device for no longer than 72 hours to obtain a search warrant. That is a limit on how long the device may be held, not a deadline for filing the warrant application.

The statute does not cover devices seized incident to arrest (C.R.S. 16-3-311(3)). Separately, it permits a seizure made with consent, a warrant, a subpoena, or another lawful exception to the warrant requirement (16-3-311(1)).

Both civil remedies described under Penalties above also apply here: the claim against the officer's agency (C.R.S. 13-21-128) and the state-constitutional lawsuit (C.R.S. 13-21-131). In the state-constitutional lawsuit, qualified immunity is not available.

On the federal side, Frasier v. Evans, 992 F.3d 1003 (10th Cir. 2021) granted qualified immunity for August 2014 conduct. The court declined to decide whether a First Amendment right to record police existed at that time.

Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022) filled the gap. It held that 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-constitutional path under C.R.S. 13-21-131 (no qualified immunity, mandatory fees) is typically cleaner than a federal Section 1983 claim.

The right to record police under C.R.S. 16-3-311 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.). It requires affirmative consent before biometric identifiers, such as voiceprints, faceprints, retina scans, and fingerprints, are collected or processed.

For biometric data, HB 24-1130 removed the Act's volume thresholds. Because of that, a business that collects or processes any amount of biometric identifiers must meet the Colorado Privacy Act's biometric rules, though purely personal or household use is exempt (C.R.S. 6-1-1304(3)(e)). Consent must be a clear, affirmative act. It can be written, but it does not have to be.

Employers may require employees to consent as a condition of employment only for four purposes: secure access, recording the start and end of the workday, workplace safety or security, and public safety in an emergency (C.R.S. 6-1-1314(6)(a)). Any other use needs the employee's voluntary consent (C.R.S. 6-1-1314(6)(b)), though the section does not restrict uses aligned with the reasonable expectations of the employee's job description or role (C.R.S. 6-1-1314(6)(d)).

Recording a call under one-party consent is one analysis. Extracting a voiceprint from that recording 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 Colorado's intimate-image law to expressly cover AI-generated and digitally altered intimate imagery (C.R.S. 18-7-107). Under it, knowingly disclosing or threatening to disclose a private intimate image or intimate digital depiction without consent is a Class 1 misdemeanor. It is elevated to a Class 6 felony when it poses an imminent, serious safety threat.

SB 25-288 also created a separate civil action (C.R.S. 13-21-1501 to -1507). A plaintiff suing under it may elect to seek actual damages or $150,000 in liquidated damages, and may also seek exemplary damages and attorney fees.

That civil action reaches only AI-generated or digitally altered intimate depictions. Its definition expressly excludes a real image captured without further editing. So a victim of a genuine, unaltered leaked photo cannot use it.

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) adds a platform notice-and-takedown procedure for nonconsensual intimate imagery. Under it, covered platforms must remove reported images within 48 hours, and platform compliance has been required since May 19, 2026.

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

All Colorado law-enforcement agencies must equip officers with body-worn cameras, which became mandatory by July 1, 2023 (SB 20-217 and HB 21-1250). Under C.R.S. 24-31-902, unedited recordings of an incident that is the subject of a misconduct complaint must be released within 21 days of a request.

Sometimes an officer fails to activate a required camera as the statute requires. Statements or conduct not recorded because of that failure then face a rebuttable presumption of inadmissibility (C.R.S. 24-31-902(1)(a)(III)). In plain terms, they are presumed to be evidence a court would exclude, but that presumption can be rebutted.

Colorado's facial-recognition law separately restricts law-enforcement facial recognition (C.R.S. 24-18-301 et seq., enacted by SB 22-113). An agency may not use facial recognition for ongoing surveillance or real-time identification unless one of these applies: it has a warrant, the use is necessary to develop leads in an investigation, it has established probable cause, or a court has authorized it to locate a missing person or identify a deceased person (C.R.S. 24-18-307).

Federal overlay: ECPA and NLRB

ECPA is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the federal law that protects wire, oral and electronic communications while they are made, in transit and stored on computers. Its wiretap rule lets a party to a conversation, or a person with one party's prior consent, record it, unless the purpose is to commit a crime or a tort in violation of federal or state law (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)). That sets a one-party-consent floor nationally, which Colorado's statutes follow; states may require more, as the all-party states listed above do.

The NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) is an independent federal agency that acts against unfair labor practices by private sector employers and unions. In its Stericycle decision (372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023)), the Board said a work rule such as a no-recording rule that could reasonably chill, that is discourage, protected activity is presumptively unlawful. The employer can overcome that presumption by proving the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest that a more narrowly tailored rule could not serve. Stericycle remains the Board's standard for judging workplace rules, though the current Board has signaled it may revisit it.

In a June 25, 2025 memo (GC 25-07), the NLRB's Acting General Counsel told regional offices to treat surreptitious recording of formal collective-bargaining sessions as a per se unfair labor practice. Collective bargaining is when a representative negotiates with the employer on employees' behalf. The memo is the General Counsel's enforcement guidance, not a Board decision.

Recent legal developments

• SB 21-271 (effective March 1, 2022): This law restructured misdemeanor sentencing, so that a Class 2 misdemeanor is now up to 120 days jail and up to $750 fine. It also reclassified eavesdropping and cordless-phone wiretapping as Class 2 misdemeanors, and made possession of wiretapping devices under C.R.S. 18-9-302 a petty offense.
• HB 23-1293 (effective October 1, 2023): This law reclassified wiretapping under C.R.S. 18-9-303 from a Class 6 felony to a Class 2 misdemeanor. It also repealed the Class 5 felony for a repeat device-possession offense under C.R.S. 18-9-302.
• HB 24-1130 (effective July 1, 2025): This law added biometric-identifier protections to the Colorado Privacy Act. Affirmative consent is required for voiceprints, faceprints, and other biometric data.
• SB 25-288 (effective August 6, 2025): This law reframed C.R.S. 18-7-107 to cover AI-generated intimate imagery, and created a $150,000 liquidated-damages civil action.
• SB 24-205 (2024): The Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act would have imposed reasonable-care duties on developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used for consequential decisions. It never became enforceable: its start date was pushed to June 30, 2026, a federal court order in April 2026 barred the attorney general from enforcing it, and in May 2026 the legislature replaced it with SB 26-189.
• SB 26-189 (effective January 1, 2027): The Automated Decision-Making Technology (ADMT) Act was signed May 14, 2026. It repeals and reenacts the SB 24-205 provisions, for consequential decisions made on or after January 1, 2027, with narrower consumer-notice, adverse-decision-disclosure, and human-review duties.

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.

More Colorado Laws

• Colorado AI Meeting Recording Laws
• Colorado Dashcam Laws
• Colorado Data Privacy Laws
• Colorado Deepfake Laws
• Colorado Employee Monitoring Laws
• Colorado GPS Tracking Laws
• Colorado Police Bodycam Laws
• Colorado Smart Glasses Recording Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Colorado is a one-party consent state. A sender or receiver of a phone, telegraph, or electronic communication may record it without notifying others (C.R.S. 18-9-303). A principal party to an in-person conversation may do the same (C.R.S. 18-9-304). 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. Colorado's wiretap statute requires the consent of only one sender or receiver (C.R.S. 18-9-303). 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. Wiretapping and eavesdropping are both Class 2 misdemeanors today, punishable by up to 120 days jail and up to $750 fine (C.R.S. 18-9-303, C.R.S. 18-9-304). Wiretapping was a Class 6 felony until HB 23-1293 reduced it for offenses on or after October 1, 2023. Voyeurism under C.R.S. 18-3-405.6 is more serious. It reaches 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. Every person has an express statutory right to record any incident involving a peace officer and to keep custody of the recording (C.R.S. 16-3-311). 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. A seizure on either ground may last no longer than 72 hours while the officer obtains a search warrant, and these limits do not apply to a device seized incident to arrest. 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 Colorado's eavesdropping law reaches only conversations held with an expectation of privacy. Colorado law also allows security audio on your own premises with reasonable public notice (C.R.S. 18-9-305(1)). A nanny cam in a shared family room is generally outside both hidden-camera statutes when intimate parts are not captured (C.R.S. 18-7-801 and 18-3-405.6). 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. HB 24-1130's biometric consent rules apply to businesses, not to purely personal or household use, so they matter only if a business runs face or voice recognition on the footage.

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 (C.R.S. 18-9-303 and C.R.S. 18-9-304). Recording employees' intimate parts without consent in bathrooms, locker rooms, or changing areas, where they expect privacy, is criminal invasion of privacy (C.R.S. 18-7-801). Under the NLRB's Stericycle decision (372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023)), a blanket no-recording rule that could reasonably chill protected activity is presumptively unlawful unless the employer proves it advances a legitimate and substantial business interest that a more narrowly tailored rule could not serve, though the current Board has signaled it may revisit Stericycle. An employer that extracts voiceprints or faceprints needs consent under HB 24-1130 (active July 1, 2025). It may require that consent as a condition of employment only for secure access, timekeeping, workplace safety or security, and emergency public safety.

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

Yes. As a participant, you may record without disclosing it (C.R.S. 18-9-303 or C.R.S. 18-9-304). 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.