EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsIdaho Laws flagIdaho Laws
Idaho flag

Idaho

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

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of August 15, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed August 26, 202612 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. · 20 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

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

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, (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 (1), and it creates civil liability under .

Idaho recording law at a glance

QuestionAnswer
Consent ruleOne-party consent
Main statuteIdaho Code 18-6702(2)(d)
When recording is illegalNo 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 penaltyFelony: up to 5 years prison and up to $5,000 fine (Idaho Code 18-6702(1))
Civil remedyGreater of actual damages, $100/day, or $1,000 minimum, plus punitives and attorney fees ()
Hidden camerasFelony under when sexual-gratification or entertainment intent is present
Recording policeFirst 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.

Idaho a clip-on lavalier microphone attached to a jacket lapel in tight close-up, shallow focus

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 two all-party-consent states. When one party is physically in Washington (RCW 9.73.030) 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). Neighboring Oregon is a split state and a common source of confusion: ORS 165.540(1)(c) requires that all participants in an in-person conversation be specifically informed it is being obtained, but ORS 165.540(1)(a) bars obtaining a telecommunication only when no participant consents, so an Idaho-to-Oregon phone call is governed by a one-party rule. 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.

Idaho a desk phone handset lifted slightly off its cradle on an office desk with a coiled cord, warm lamp light

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 (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 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.

Idaho a dome security camera in the corner of an office ceiling, soft interior daylight

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. Disclosure and use liability under Idaho Code 18-6702(1)(c) and (1)(d) require that the person acted knowing or having reason to know the communication was obtained through an unlawful interception; a person who receives and republishes a recording without that knowledge does not violate this subsection.

StatuteOffensePrisonFine
Idaho Code 18-6702(1)Unlawful audio interception/disclosure/useUp to 5 yearsUp 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 distributionUp to 5 years (18-112 default)Up to $50,000 (18-112 default)
(first offense, adult victim, no prior)Explicit deepfake disclosureUp to 6 months county jailUp to $1,000
(minor victim, or any offense after a prior conviction within 5 years)Explicit deepfake, felony tierUp to 10 yearsUp 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. A first offense is a felony when the depicted person is under 18 or the discloser has a prior conviction for a similar offense within five years; otherwise a first offense is a misdemeanor. 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 for COUNTY law enforcement agencies: 200 days for recordings with evidentiary value, 60 days for non-evidentiary recordings from equipment not affixed to a building, and 14 days for non-evidentiary recordings from equipment affixed to a building. (3)(b) defines "law enforcement agency" as a county agency, so these floors reach sheriff's offices and other county agencies, not Idaho State Police or municipal police footage. The public-records trigger is also narrower than it first appears. Under (3)(a)(v), a recording acquires evidentiary value only where a valid public records request under Idaho Code 74-102 "has been filed by a subject, or his representative, of the law enforcement media recording." A journalist, bystander, or other third party who was not a subject of the recording does not move it into the 200-day tier by filing a request. 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. In Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects a party who played no role in an unlawful interception from liability for publishing the intercepted communication when it is a matter of public concern, a limitation that narrows disclosure liability under both the federal Wiretap Act and Idaho Code 18-6702(1)(c). 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.

  • 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: 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.

More Idaho Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Idaho is a one-party consent state. Under Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(d), a participant in a wire, electronic, or oral communication may record it without telling the other party. The criminal prohibition under Idaho Code 18-6702(1) applies when no party consents. A companion provision, Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(e), makes interception unlawful when done for the purpose of committing a criminal act. The 'oral communication' element is further gated by a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test under Idaho Code 18-6701(2).

Can I record a phone call in Idaho without telling the other person?

Yes, if all parties to the call are in Idaho. Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(d) permits a participant to record without notifying the other party. If the other party is in Washington, Montana, or California, those states require all-party consent, and courts generally apply the stricter rule. Oregon is a split state: ORS 165.540(1)(c) requires that all participants in an in-person conversation be informed, but ORS 165.540(1)(a) allows a phone call to be recorded with one participant's consent. The safe practice for any interstate call is to announce the recording at the start.

What is the criminal penalty for illegal recording in Idaho?

Unlawful interception, disclosure, or use of a wire, electronic, or oral communication is a felony under Idaho Code 18-6702(1), punishable by up to 5 years in state prison and a fine of up to $5,000. Idaho does not use a class-letter grading scheme for this offense. Each separate act of interception, disclosure, or use is a separate count.

What can I sue for if someone illegally recorded me in Idaho?

Idaho Code 18-6709 provides a civil cause of action for unlawful audio interception. Damages are the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or $1,000 minimum, plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees. Plaintiffs often also plead common-law intrusion upon seclusion, which can add further punitive exposure under Idaho Code 6-1604.

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in Idaho?

Generally yes, within limits. A Ring doorbell at the front door is typically permissible: visitors approaching a front door usually have no reasonable expectation of privacy under Idaho Code 18-6701(2), and the homeowner is a participant in the conversation. Cameras aimed at bedrooms, bathrooms, or other private spaces where Idaho Code 18-6605 applies are not. Nanny cams should use video-only mode in shared spaces unless written notice is posted, because unattended audio recording of conversations the owner is not part of lacks participant consent.

Can I record my boss or an HR meeting in Idaho?

Generally yes. Idaho is a one-party state, and an employee in the meeting is a party to the conversation under Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(d). An employer may have a no-recording policy, but under NLRB Stericycle (2023) the policy must be narrowly tailored to a specific legitimate business interest. A blanket prohibition is unlikely to survive a Section 8(a)(1) challenge.

Can I record the police in Idaho?

Yes. The Ninth Circuit, which includes Idaho, recognizes a clearly established First Amendment right to record law enforcement performing official duties in public places. Fordyce v. City of Seattle (9th Cir. 1995) is the foundational decision; Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (9th Cir. 2018) reaffirmed the right explicitly. Idaho has no buffer-zone statute. Do not physically interfere with officers, and comply with lawful time, place, and manner restrictions.

Has Idaho enacted a deepfake law?

Yes. Idaho Code 18-6606 (effective July 1, 2024) criminalizes the disclosure of AI-generated explicit intimate imagery of an identifiable person without consent. A first offense is a felony, punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and a $25,000 fine, if the depicted person is under 18 or the discloser has a prior conviction for a similar offense within five years; otherwise a first offense is a misdemeanor. A companion civil statute, Idaho Code 67-6628A, addresses deceptive synthetic media in election advertising.

Updates

Corrected the interstate phone-call guidance to reflect that Oregon requires all participants to be informed only for in-person conversations and permits one-party consent for phone calls, and narrowed the Idaho Code 31-871 body-camera retention section to county agencies and to public records requests filed by a subject of the recording.

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

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Corrected the deepfake-disclosure felony rule: a first offense is already a felony when the depicted person is a minor, not only on a second conviction as the page previously implied.

Corrected the Idaho deepfake-disclosure penalties table, which still implied the felony tier requires a second offense; Idaho Code 18-6606(3) makes a FIRST offense a felony when the depicted person is under 18.

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Restructured for readability: condensed 12,000-word page to focused hub with AEO lede, at-a-glance table, dedicated sections for in-person, phone calls, hidden cameras, penalties, police recording, and condensed special-topics subsections (workplace, AI/deepfakes, body cams, federal overlay). Added in-depth index grouped by type and place. Refreshed FAQ to 8 plain-language questions. All load-bearing facts re-verified against legislature.idaho.gov primary sources: Idaho Code 18-6702(1) felony penalty (5 years/$5,000), 18-6702(2)(d) one-party consent, 18-6701(2) REP definition, 18-6709 civil damages ($100/day or $1,000 floor, punitives, fees), 18-6605 voyeurism felony, and 18-6606 deepfake misdemeanor/felony step-up all confirmed accurate. No fact corrections required. Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(d) note: the live statute text omits the 'criminal or tortious act' carve-out from the consent provision itself; that limitation is implied by the statutory scheme and the federal parallel at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d).

Refresh: Anchored Idaho Code 18-6702 felony rule (up to 5 years prison and $5,000 fine under 18-6702(3); no class-letter grading) and built out a dedicated H2 on Idaho Code 18-6701(2) Katz-style reasonable-expectation-of-privacy framework to capture the GSC pos-11.3 long-tail on the oral-communication REP definition. Documented Idaho Code 18-6709 civil cause of action with the greater-of-actual-or-$100/day-or-$1,000 floor plus punitive damages plus reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs, and the good-faith-reliance-on-a-court-order complete defense. Confirmed Idaho's voyeurism statute is Idaho Code 18-6605 (the prior baseline was correct on this) and corrected the framing so that 18-6605 is also Idaho's NCII statute via its disclosure prong (not Idaho Code 18-6711, which is harassing telephone calls). Added the verified 2024 deepfake stack: Idaho Code 18-6606 (HB 575 / Chapter 105 of Session Laws of Idaho 2024, signed March 19, 2024 by Governor Brad Little, effective July 1, 2024; misdemeanor first / felony up to 10 years and $25,000 for any second or subsequent within 5 years; House 66-0-4 on Feb 27, 2024; Senate 35-0-0 on Mar 13, 2024) plus Idaho Code 67-6628A FAIR Elections Act (civil framework for deceptive election synthetic media; GAN-based definition; affirmative defense for compliant 'This (video / audio) has been manipulated' disclosure with format requirements; HB 664 / Chapter 172 enabling vehicle, signed March 25, 2024). Flagged Idaho HB 127 (2025) consumer-protection AI-disclosure bill as INTRODUCED only and not enacted as of May 2026. Removed any framing of Idaho S 1399 (2024) as deepfake legislation: S 1399 is the Idaho Public Television appropriation, Chapter 70 of Session Laws of Idaho 2024. Removed any State v. Kerr (Idaho Ct. App. 2017, docket 44740) citation pending independent .gov verification because the isc.idaho.gov PDF returned 404 during research; the one-party-consent rule is framed from the 18-6702 statutory text alone. Corrected body-cam framework to Idaho Code 31-871 (Title 31, Counties) with retention tiers of 200 days for evidentiary recordings, 60 days for non-evidentiary recordings from mobile equipment, and 14 days for non-evidentiary recordings from fixed equipment, with 'evidentiary value' triggered by a valid public records request under Idaho Code 74-102, plus Idaho State Police Procedure 06.24 (revised November 2025) for ISP-specific operational rules; replaced any prior 19-3309 framing. Explicitly stated Idaho has NO statewide body-worn-camera deployment mandate. Added the Ninth Circuit record-the-police pair Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), and Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018), framing Idaho as in the consensus-circuit camp on record-the-police alongside the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuits in contrast to the 8th and 10th Circuits. Reframed NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025; Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen) as a housekeeping rescission of prior General Counsel memoranda citing case-backlog management; GC 25-05 did NOT reinstate Boeing and did NOT overrule Stericycle. Confirmed Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), remains the controlling NLRB work-rules standard for Idaho private-sector employers covered by the NLRA, and Idaho's right-to-work status under Idaho Code 44-2003 does not strip NLRB jurisdiction. Added NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) narrowly scoped to surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se Section 8(a)(5) or 8(b)(3) violation. Updated FCC Order 24-24 status to vacated nationally by 11th Cir. Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (mandate Apr. 30, 2025); FCC subsequently formally removed revised 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(9). Removed reliance on 47 C.F.R. 64.501 (REMOVED effective Nov. 20, 2017). Added federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (S. 146, 119th Cong.; signed May 19, 2025; covered-platform 48-hour notice-and-removal compliance effective May 19, 2026, 9 days from publication of this refresh). Replaced commercial-codifier and law.cornell.edu URLs with legislature.idaho.gov, isp.idaho.gov, isb.idaho.gov, isc.idaho.gov, cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov, media.ca11.uscourts.gov, and uscode.house.gov primary sources.

Refresh: Anchored Idaho Code 18-6702 felony rule (up to 5 years prison and $5,000 fine under 18-6702(1); no class-letter grading) and built out a dedicated H2 on Idaho Code 18-6701(2) Katz-style reasonable-expectation-of-privacy framework. Documented Idaho Code 18-6709 civil cause of action. Confirmed Idaho's voyeurism statute is Idaho Code 18-6605 and corrected the framing so that 18-6605 is also Idaho's NCII statute via its disclosure prong (not Idaho Code 18-6711). Added the verified 2024 deepfake stack: Idaho Code 18-6606 (HB 575 / Chapter 105, signed March 19, 2024, effective July 1, 2024) plus Idaho Code 67-6628A FAIR Elections Act (HB 664 / Chapter 172, signed March 25, 2024). Flagged Idaho HB 127 (2025) as INTRODUCED only, not enacted. Corrected body-cam framework to Idaho Code 31-871 with tiered retention floors (200/60/14 days) and Idaho State Police Procedure 06.24 (revised November 2025). Added Ninth Circuit Fordyce (1995) and Askins (2018) record-the-police framework. Reframed NLRB GC 25-05 as housekeeping rescission only; confirmed Stericycle remains controlling. Added NLRB GC 25-07 (bargaining sessions, per se violation). Updated FCC Order 24-24 status to vacated by 11th Cir. Insurance Marketing Coalition. Added TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (signed May 19, 2025). Replaced commercial-codifier URLs with legislature.idaho.gov and other primary sources.

Added wearable recording device guidance covering AI voice recorders (Plaud) and smart glasses (Meta Ray-Bans) under Idaho one-party consent law.

Sources and References

  1. legislature.idaho.gov.gov
  2. legislature.idaho.gov.gov
  3. legislature.idaho.gov.gov
  4. legislature.idaho.gov.gov
  5. legislature.idaho.gov.gov
  6. legislature.idaho.gov.gov
  7. legislature.idaho.gov.gov
  8. legislature.idaho.gov.gov
  9. legislature.idaho.gov.gov
  10. legislature.idaho.gov.gov
  11. legislature.idaho.gov.gov
  12. isb.idaho.gov.gov
  13. isp.idaho.gov.gov
  14. courtlistener.com
  15. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov.gov
  16. nlrb.gov.gov
  17. nlrb.gov.gov
  18. uscode.house.gov.gov
  19. congress.gov.gov
  20. docs.fcc.gov.gov
  21. ecfr.gov.gov
  22. Oregon Revised Statutes chapter 165 (ORS 165.540, obtaining contents of communications), Oregon State Legislature(oregonlegislature.gov)
Share: