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

By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 202615 min read

Idaho is a one-party consent state under Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(d). Any participant in a wire, electronic, or oral communication may record it without notifying the other parties. A separate subsection, Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(e), makes it unlawful to intercept any communication for the purpose of committing a criminal act. Unlawful interception is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $5,000 fine under Idaho Code 18-6702(1), and it creates civil liability under Idaho Code 18-6709.

Idaho recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
Consent rule	One-party consent
Main statute	Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(d)
When recording is illegal	No party consents (Idaho Code 18-6702(1)), or any person intercepts for the purpose of committing a criminal act (Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(e))
Criminal penalty	Felony: up to 5 years prison and up to $5,000 fine (Idaho Code 18-6702(1))
Civil remedy	Greater of actual damages, $100/day, or $1,000 minimum, plus punitives and attorney fees (Idaho Code 18-6709)
Hidden cameras	Felony under Idaho Code 18-6605 when sexual-gratification or entertainment intent is present
Recording police	First Amendment right recognized by the Ninth Circuit (Fordyce 1995; Askins 2018)

For a full walkthrough of each rule, see the in-depth guides below.

Recording in-person conversations in Idaho

Under Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(d), it is lawful for a participant in a wire, electronic, or oral communication to record without the knowledge of the other parties. A companion subsection, Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(e), separately provides that "it is unlawful to intercept any communication for the purpose of committing any criminal act." Idaho's (2)(e) tracks the spirit of the federal floor at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) (which uses "criminal or tortious act") but Idaho's own text extends only to criminal acts, not tortious acts. Idaho also does not extend the prohibition to "any other injurious act" as some states do.

A structural feature distinguishes Idaho from a generic one-party state. Idaho Code 18-6701(2) defines an "oral communication" as one "uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." This two-prong test (subjective expectation plus objective justification) is imported directly from the federal Katz framework. A third party who records a conversation without any participant's consent does not violate Idaho Code 18-6702 unless the underlying conversation qualified as a protected "oral communication" in the first place.

In practice, conversations in private homes, closed offices, and medical or legal settings typically satisfy both prongs. Conversations on a public sidewalk, in a loud restaurant, or at a rally typically do not, because bystanders can plainly overhear and the circumstances do not objectively justify a privacy expectation. This means surreptitious recording of open-air public conversations does not violate chapter 67, even by a third party with no participant's consent.

wireless earbuds in their open charging case on a white desk

Recording phone calls in Idaho

The same Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(d) rule applies to telephone calls: a participant may record a landline, cell, VoIP (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet, Webex), or over-the-top messaging call without notifying the other party, subject to the crime-tort proviso. A homeowner recording their own incoming calls, a small business recording a customer-service call they participate in, and an employee recording a call with their employer are all within the exception.

Interstate calls require extra care. Idaho borders three all-party-consent states. When one party is physically in Washington (RCW 9.73.030), Oregon (ORS 165.540), or Montana (MCA 45-8-213), courts typically apply the stricter all-party rule. The same applies to California (Penal Code 632) and Nevada phone calls (NRS 200.620). If you cannot reliably confirm the other party's location, the safe rule is to announce the recording at the start of the call and obtain a verbal affirmation.

For a full interstate-call walkthrough, see Idaho Phone Call Recording Laws.

two professionals standing at a city sidewalk corner, one speaking into a smartphone held to the ear while the other holds documents

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Idaho's visual-side statute is Idaho Code 18-6605, a felony covering both surreptitious recording and non-consensual disclosure of intimate imagery. The recording prong requires sexual-gratification or entertainment intent, an imaging device, capture of intimate areas, lack of consent, and a setting where the depicted person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A parent monitoring childcare in shared living spaces does not satisfy the intent element, so a nanny cam in a living room or kitchen is generally permissible for video.

A Ring doorbell or front-door camera is generally permissible. Visitors approaching a front door typically have no reasonable expectation of privacy under Idaho Code 18-6701(2), so the audio captured is not a protected "oral communication." And the homeowner is a participant in any conversation they have at the door, satisfying one-party consent. Bathroom-facing or bedroom-facing coverage is a different matter: where the depicted person has REP and any sexual-gratification or entertainment intent is present, the recording prong of Idaho Code 18-6605 applies.

Nanny cam audio is a separate issue. An unattended camera can record conversations between a nanny and child to which the homeowner is not a party, which means no participant has consented. The conservative rule is video-only mode in shared spaces unless a written notice is posted making clear that audio is captured, so that a reasonable caregiver would not expect privacy.

For detailed rules on home surveillance, see Idaho Security Camera Laws and Idaho Video Recording Laws. For voyeurism specifics, see Idaho Voyeurism Laws.

glass-walled conference room with figures behind translucent doors

Penalties for illegal recording in Idaho

Idaho Code 18-6702(1) makes unlawful interception, disclosure, or use of an intercepted communication a single ungraded felony. Each act is a separate offense: intercepting a conversation, then disclosing the recording, then using its contents each count separately.

Statute	Offense	Prison	Fine
Idaho Code 18-6702(1)	Unlawful audio interception/disclosure/use	Up to 5 years	Up to $5,000
Idaho Code 18-6605 (recording prong)	Video voyeurism (sexual-gratification intent)	Up to 5 years (18-112 default)	Up to $50,000 (18-112 default)
Idaho Code 18-6605 (disclosure prong)	Non-consensual intimate-image distribution	Up to 5 years (18-112 default)	Up to $50,000 (18-112 default)
Idaho Code 18-6606 (first offense)	Explicit deepfake disclosure	Up to 6 months county jail	Up to $1,000
Idaho Code 18-6606 (second within 5 years)	Explicit deepfake, repeat	Up to 10 years	Up to $25,000

For civil claims, Idaho Code 18-6709 authorizes recovery of the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or $1,000 minimum, plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs. Good-faith reliance on a court order is a complete defense to both civil and criminal liability. Practitioners often pair the 18-6709 claim with a common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion count under Restatement (Second) of Torts 652, with punitive damages available under Idaho Code 6-1604 on a showing of oppressive, fraudulent, malicious, or outrageous conduct.

stack of sealed white envelopes with a wax seal visible on the top one

Recording the police in Idaho

Idaho is in the Ninth Circuit, which recognizes a clearly established First Amendment right to record law enforcement and matters of public interest in public places. Two cases anchor the rule. In Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), the court recognized a First Amendment interest in filming matters of public interest and reversed summary judgment for an officer who allegedly struck a citizen's camera during a public protest. In Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018), the court held expressly that "the First Amendment protects the right to photograph and record matters of public interest," including law enforcement officers performing official duties in public places.

Idahoans recording officers during traffic stops, at protests, on public streets, at federal land borders, and on BLM or Forest Service land have protection under both decisions. Idaho has no buffer-zone or distance-restriction statute. The right is not absolute: do not physically interfere with an officer's activity, record from a reasonable distance, and comply with lawful time, place, and manner orders.

Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(d) as applied to officer interactions is straightforward: you are a party to the conversation, so one-party consent covers the audio. The audio side of the chapter 67 analysis rarely blocks recording of police in public.

For more on body cameras and public records, see Idaho Laws on Recording Police.

Special topics in Idaho

Workplace recording

An Idaho employee who is a party to an HR meeting, a performance review, or a private workplace conversation may record audio under Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(d). Employers may adopt no-recording policies, but under Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), the policy must advance a legitimate, substantial business interest and must be no broader than necessary. A blanket "no recording" rule typically fails; a rule limited to trade secrets, PHI, or attorney-client communications typically survives. Idaho is a right-to-work state under Idaho Code 44-2003, but that does not strip NLRB jurisdiction. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) separately bars surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se violation of the NLRA, but that rule is narrowly scoped and does not affect general workplace audio. Idaho attorneys face an additional layer: Idaho State Bar Formal Opinion 130 governs surreptitious recording by attorneys, and what is lawful under 18-6702 may still violate the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct.

For the full workplace framework, see Idaho Workplace Recording Laws.

AI and deepfake statutes

Idaho enacted an explicit-deepfake criminal statute in 2024. Idaho Code 18-6606 (HB 575 / Chapter 105 of Session Laws of Idaho 2024, signed March 19, 2024, effective July 1, 2024) criminalizes disclosure of AI-generated or digitally manipulated explicit imagery of an identifiable person without their consent. First offense is a misdemeanor; any second conviction within five years is a felony. The companion Idaho Code 67-6628A (FAIR Elections Act, HB 664 / Chapter 172, signed March 25, 2024) provides a civil framework for deceptive synthetic media in electioneering communications, with an affirmative defense for communications bearing a compliant disclosure. Idaho HB 127 (2025), an AI-disclosure consumer-protection bill, was introduced in February 2025 and has not been enacted as of June 2026.

Body-worn cameras and public records

Idaho has no statewide body-worn-camera deployment mandate. Idaho Code 31-871 sets tiered retention minimums: 200 days for recordings with evidentiary value, 60 days for non-evidentiary recordings from mobile equipment, and 14 days for non-evidentiary recordings from fixed equipment. A valid public records request under Idaho Code 74-102 triggers the evidentiary-value tier, so filing promptly is the practical mechanism for preserving footage. Idaho State Police Procedure 06.24 (revised November 2025) supplements at the agency level for ISP troopers.

Federal overlay

The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. 2510 to 2522) sets a one-party-consent floor that Idaho's statute mirrors. For interstate calls, stricter state law still controls as a practical matter. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (February 8, 2024) clarifies that AI-generated voices in calls count as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA, giving Idaho consumers a federal cause of action for unsolicited AI-voice calls. The TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025), criminalizes knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions including AI deepfakes; covered-platform 48-hour notice-and-removal compliance became mandatory May 19, 2026. HIPAA binds Idaho healthcare providers, not patients; a patient may record their own visit under 18-6702(2)(d) without HIPAA implication.

Recent legal developments

July 1, 2024: Idaho Code 18-6606 (HB 575) took effect, creating criminal liability for disclosure of explicit AI-generated intimate imagery.
March 25, 2024: Idaho Code 67-6628A FAIR Elections Act (HB 664) signed, providing a civil framework for deceptive synthetic media in election advertising.
June 25, 2025: NLRB GC 25-07 issued, barring surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se NLRA violation.
May 19, 2026: TAKE IT DOWN Act covered-platform 48-hour notice-and-removal compliance became mandatory, adding a federal layer to Idaho Code 18-6605 and 18-6606 NCII/deepfake remedies.
November 2025: Idaho State Police Procedure 06.24 revised, updating ISP body-camera operational rules.

Idaho recording laws in depth

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Idaho 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 Idaho attorney.

Sources and References

()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()