EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsColorado Laws flagColorado Laws
Colorado flag

Colorado

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

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of August 15, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed August 26, 202611 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 15, 2026. · 28 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

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

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

QuestionAnswer
Consent ruleOne-party ( wire/electronic; 18-9-304 in-person)
When recording is illegalNon-participant intercepts without any party's consent
Criminal penaltyClass 2 misdemeanor: up to 120 days jail; up to $750 fine
Civil remedy: $500/recording + replacement + fees + up to $15,000 punitives
Hidden cameras / voyeurismC.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 policeStatutory 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. Oregon is a partial exception: ORS 165.540 requires consent from only one participant to record a telephone or electronic communication, so its all-party rule applies to in-person conversations there, not phone calls. 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).

OffenseStatuteClassJailFine
WiretappingC.R.S. 18-9-303Class 2 misdemeanorUp to 120 daysUp to $750
EavesdroppingC.R.S. 18-9-304Class 2 misdemeanorUp to 120 daysUp to $750
Device possession with unlawful intentC.R.S. 18-9-302Petty offenseUp to 10 daysUp to $300
Voyeurism (first offense)C.R.S. 18-3-405.6Class 1 misdemeanorUp to 364 daysUp to $1,000
Voyeurism (prior unlawful-sexual-behavior conviction, or depicted person under 15 and defendant 4+ yrs older)C.R.S. 18-3-405.6Class 6 felony1 to 24 months (extraordinary-risk crime under C.R.S. 18-1.3-401(10)(b)(XV))$1,000 to $100,000
Intimate image disclosureClass 1 misdemeanorUp to 364 daysUp to $1,000, plus a mandatory additional fine up to $10,000 ((1)(c))
Intimate image with imminent safety threatC.R.S. 18-7-107Class 6 felony1 to 18 months$1,000 to $100,000

On the civil side, two remedies exist for police-related violations. 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 (enacted by HB 15-1290 in 2015 and unamended since) 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. 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. C.R.S. 16-3-311(3) also excludes devices seized incident to arrest, and 16-3-311(1) separately permits a seizure made with consent, a warrant, a subpoena, or another lawful exception to the warrant requirement.

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. SB 25-288 also created a separate civil action (C.R.S. 13-21-1501 to -1507) letting the plaintiff elect actual damages or $150,000 liquidated damages, plus exemplary damages and attorney fees, but 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 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 fails to activate a required camera as the statute requires, statements or conduct not recorded because of that failure face a rebuttable presumption of inadmissibility under C.R.S. 24-31-902(1)(a)(III). 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.

  • 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 (2024): Colorado Artificial Intelligence Act; would have imposed reasonable-care duties on developers and deployers of high-risk AI systems used for consequential decisions, but its effective date was delayed twice and it was repealed before it ever took effect.
  • SB 26-189 (effective January 1, 2027): Automated Decision-Making Technology (ADMT) Act; repealed and replaced SB 24-205 with narrower consumer-notice, adverse-decision-disclosure, and human-review duties.

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. 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 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

Corrected the description of C.R.S. 16-3-311: the 72 hours is the maximum time an officer may hold a seized recording device while obtaining a search warrant, not a deadline for applying for one, and the rule does not reach devices seized incident to arrest.

Corrected the maximum sentence for aggravated voyeurism (24 months, not 18, under the state's extraordinary-risk-crime enhancement), added the mandatory additional $10,000 fine for intimate-image disclosure, fixed a wrong statute citation for the body-camera inadmissibility rule, clarified that SB 25-288's $150,000 civil action covers only AI-altered images and not real unaltered photos, and corrected Oregon's phone-call consent rule to one-party.

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

Updated Colorado AI Act coverage: SB 24-205 was repealed and replaced by SB 26-189 (2026) before taking effect.

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.

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.

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Reviewed and approved by an editor

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Sources and References

  1. C.R.S. 18-9-303; C.R.S. 18-9-304(leg.colorado.gov).gov
  2. C.R.S. 18-9-303(leg.colorado.gov).gov
  3. C.R.S. 18-9-304(leg.colorado.gov).gov
  4. C.R.S. 18-9-303; C.R.S. 18-9-304; C.R.S. 18-1.3-401; C.R.S. 18-1.3-501(leg.colorado.gov).gov
  5. C.R.S. 18-9-302 (wiretapping and eavesdropping device possession, petty offense; HB 23-1293 eff. Oct 1, 2023); C.R.S. 18-9-305 (exceptions to wiretapping and eavesdropping prohibitions)(leg.colorado.gov).gov
  6. C.R.S. 13-21-128 (recording-device civil remedy: $500/recording, replacement, fees, punitive up to $15,000 bad-faith cap)(leg.colorado.gov).gov
  7. Frasier v. Evans, 992 F.3d 1003 (10th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 427 (2021)(ca10.uscourts.gov).gov
  8. Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022)(ca10.uscourts.gov).gov
  9. C.R.S. 18-3-405.6; C.R.S. 18-3-401(2)(leg.colorado.gov).gov
  10. Doe v. High-Tech Institute, Inc., 972 P.2d 1060 (Colo. App. 1998); Robert C. Ozer, P.C. v. Borquez, 940 P.2d 371 (Colo. 1997); C.R.S. 13-21-102; C.R.S. 13-80-102(courts.state.co.us)
  11. Cal. Penal Code 632; Fla. Stat. 934.03; 720 ILCS 5/14-2; Md. Code Cts. and Jud. Proc. 10-402; Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 14; Mont. Code 45-8-213; N.H. RSA 570-A:2; Or. Rev. Stat. 165.540; 18 Pa. C.S. 5703; Wash. Rev. Code 9.73.030; Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d(leg.colorado.gov).gov
  12. 18 U.S.C. 2510-2522; 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)(uscode.house.gov).gov
  13. Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023); NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025); NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025); Bartlett-Collins Co., 237 NLRB 770 (1978)(nlrb.gov).gov
  14. NLRA Section 7; NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025)(nlrb.gov).gov
  15. C.R.S. 24-31-902; SB 20-217; HB 21-1250(leg.colorado.gov).gov
  16. Colorado Privacy Act, C.R.S. 6-1-1301 et seq.; HB 24-1130 (Chapter 313, Session Laws of Colorado 2024)(leg.colorado.gov).gov
  17. C.R.S. 18-7-107 (post-SB 25-288); SB 25-288 (Chapter 339, Session Laws of Colorado 2025)(leg.colorado.gov).gov
  18. SB 24-205 (Colorado AI Act)(leg.colorado.gov).gov
  19. HB 24-1147(leg.colorado.gov).gov
  20. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024); 47 U.S.C. 227 (TCPA); Colorado Consumer Protection Act, C.R.S. 6-1-105 et seq.(docs.fcc.gov).gov
  21. Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025); 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(9); 47 C.F.R. 64.501 (REMOVED Nov. 20, 2017); 82 Fed. Reg. 48,766(media.ca11.uscourts.gov).gov
  22. Justice Manual 9-7.302; 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(c)(justice.gov).gov
  23. TAKE IT DOWN Act, S. 146, 119th Cong., Pub. L. 119-12(congress.gov).gov
  24. 47 U.S.C. 1001-1010 (CALEA); 45 C.F.R. Part 164 (HIPAA); 12 C.F.R. 1006.6 (Reg F); 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. (FDCPA); C.R.S. 5-16-101 et seq.; FTC v. Ring (2023)(uscode.house.gov).gov
  25. C.R.S. 13-21-131; SB 20-217; HB 21-1250 (no-qualified-immunity civil action for state-constitutional rights deprivation)(leg.colorado.gov).gov
  26. leg.colorado.gov.gov
  27. leg.colorado.gov.gov
  28. dre.colorado.gov.gov
  29. C.R.S. 24-18-307 - Use of facial recognition service by law enforcement agencies(colorado.public.law)
  30. Colorado SB 26-189 (Automated Decision-Making Technology Act — repeals and reenacts SB 24-205)(leg.colorado.gov).gov
  31. C.R.S. 16-3-311 (peace officer incident recordings; (2)(e) 72-hour cap on temporary seizure while a search warrant is obtained; (3) inapplicable to devices seized incident to arrest)(olls.info)
Share: