Idaho Recording Laws (2026): Idaho Code 18-6702
Idaho is a one-party consent state. Under Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(d), a person may intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication when one of the parties has given prior consent, unless the recording is made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act in violation of federal or state law. That crime-tort proviso is identical in scope to the federal floor at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). Idaho does not extend the proviso to "any other injurious act" as some sister states do. (c1)(c12)
Violation of Idaho Code 18-6702 is a felony under Idaho Code 18-6702(3), punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $5,000. The "oral communication" element is gated by Idaho Code 18-6701(2), which 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." That two-prong test is the doctrinal heart of Idaho audio law: a one-party-consent recording of a conversation that no party expected to be private may not violate the statute at all. The civil cause of action is Idaho Code 18-6709, with damages of the greater of actual, $100 per day, or $1,000 minimum, plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees. (c2)(c3)
This page is the Idaho recording-law hub on RecordingLaw.com. It walks the operative criminal statute (Idaho Code 18-6702), the REP framework at Idaho Code 18-6701(2), the civil remedies at 18-6709, the visual-side bifurcation at 18-6605, the 2024 deepfake stack at 18-6606 and 67-6628A, the Ninth Circuit record-the-police pair (Fordyce plus Askins), the body-cam framework at 31-871, the workplace overlay (Stericycle plus GC 25-05 housekeeping correction plus GC 25-07), the federal overlay including the TAKE IT DOWN Act, and the FAQ block. See also the full list of one-party consent states and the counter-list of all-party consent states.
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 single party's consent satisfies the statute. If you are part of the conversation, you can record it without telling the other person. The criminal prohibition under Idaho Code 18-6702(1) reaches a person who is neither a party to the communication nor authorized by a party, plus a participant who records for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.
The textual basis is the consent exception at Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(d), which provides that "it shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or of any state." Idaho's consent rule mirrors the federal floor in 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) almost word for word. (c1)(c12)
The carve-out matters in practice. Recording a coworker to extort them is a "criminal" purpose and the consent defense fails. Recording the same coworker to document harassment for an HR complaint is not criminal and is not tortious, so the carve-out applies and the recording remains lawful. Idaho's one-party rule is structurally similar to its neighboring one-party-consent states (Utah, Nevada in-person under NRS 200.650, Wyoming) but stricter than its two-party-consent neighbors (Washington, Oregon, Montana, California). The interstate-call section below has the full breakdown.
A second structural feature distinguishes Idaho from a generic one-party-consent state: the "oral communication" element is gated by the REP definition at Idaho Code 18-6701(2). Even when no party consents and the recording is by a third party, the statute is not violated unless the speaker exhibited an expectation of privacy and the circumstances justified that expectation. The next H2 walks the test in detail.
Idaho Code 18-6702: Interception and Disclosure Prohibited
Idaho Code 18-6702(1) criminalizes four categories of conduct as a felony. The statute reaches any person who:
- Willfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures another to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication.
- Willfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures another to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication.
- Willfully discloses or endeavors to disclose to another the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through unlawful interception.
- Willfully uses or endeavors to use the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through unlawful interception.
The penalty is a single, ungraded felony tier. Idaho Code 18-6702(3) provides that violation is "punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a term not to exceed five (5) years or a fine not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), or by both fine and imprisonment." Idaho's wiretap statute does not use a class-letter grading scheme. There is no Class D, no Class C, no class-letter qualifier; the offense is simply a felony capped at 5 years and $5,000. (c2)
Each act of interception, disclosure, or use is a separate offense. A defendant who intercepts a single conversation, then discloses the recording to a coworker, then uses the disclosed contents in a civil dispute, faces three counts under 18-6702, even if the underlying interception was a single event.
Statutory Exceptions to Idaho Code 18-6702
Idaho Code 18-6702(2) lists the exceptions that prevent liability:
- One-party consent (Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(d)). A participant may record any wire, electronic, or oral communication, subject to the crime-tort proviso.
- Law enforcement (Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(c)). An officer who is a party to a communication, or who acts under the direction of an officer who is a party, may intercept the communication without a warrant.
- Switchboard operators and common-carrier employees. Interception of a wire communication in the normal course of employment, where it is a necessary incident to service or to the protection of the carrier's rights.
- FCC-regulated radio. Interception of FCC-regulated radio communications by readily available consumer equipment generally is not unlawful under chapter 67.
Idaho Code 18-6703 separately prohibits manufacture, distribution, possession, or advertisement of devices "primarily useful" for surreptitious interception. (c25) Idaho Code 18-6702 has no general "for-pay" exception, no journalistic exception, and no employer-monitoring exception. The participant-and-consent path under 18-6702(2)(d) is the only practical lawful route for most private actors.
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy Under Idaho Code 18-6701
Idaho Code 18-6701(2) is the structural feature that distinguishes Idaho audio law from a generic one-party-consent regime. The statute defines an "oral communication" as "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation but such term does not include any electronic communication." The two-prong framework imports the federal Title III and Katz reasonable-expectation-of-privacy doctrine directly into the statutory text. (c3)
The first prong is subjective. The speaker must actually exhibit an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception. Whispering in a doctor's office, closing an office door before a private call, lowering one's voice when describing a personal matter, and similar manifestations all satisfy the subjective prong. Speaking at full volume in a public restaurant where adjacent diners can plainly overhear, or shouting across a street, generally does not.
The second prong is objective. The circumstances must justify the speaker's expectation. A person whispering on a public sidewalk at midday with people walking by may exhibit a subjective expectation, but the circumstances do not objectively justify it; the prong fails and the conversation is not a covered "oral communication." A person speaking at conversational volume behind the closed door of a private residence with no one else present can satisfy both prongs even if the volume is normal, because the circumstances objectively justify the expectation.
Idaho Fact Patterns Under the Two-Prong Test
The REP analysis is heavily fact-bound. Several recurring Idaho fact patterns illustrate the application:
- Open-air public-place conversations. Talking on a public sidewalk, in a park, at a rally, or in a checkout line typically does not generate a covered "oral communication," because bystanders can plainly overhear. Surreptitious recording of those conversations does not violate Idaho Code 18-6702 because the predicate communication is not protected.
- Private home conversations. Conversations behind closed doors in a private residence are typically protected. Both prongs are easily met when the speaker has manifested a privacy expectation through the physical setting.
- Workplace conversations. Fact-dependent. A manager's office with the door closed and only two participants is generally protected. A break-room conversation at conversational volume with other employees nearby is generally not.
- Restaurants and bars. Generally not protected at conversational volume. A whispered conversation in a quiet restaurant booth with no nearby diners may satisfy both prongs; a normal-volume conversation in a busy bar typically does not.
- Cars. A conversation inside a closed-window car between two passengers is typically protected. A conversation in a convertible on a public street, or with the windows open at a stoplight, may not be.
- Medical, attorney-client, or counseling settings. Strongly protected. Both prongs are typically met.
Why the REP Framework Matters for One-Party Consent Analysis
The 18-6701(2) gate operates upstream of consent analysis. A third-party recording made without any party's consent does not violate 18-6702 if the underlying conversation was not a covered "oral communication" in the first place. A tourist filming a public rally in Boise from across the street, capturing audio of speakers talking to a crowd, has not violated chapter 67. The flip side: a non-participant who records an obviously private conversation by holding a phone outside the door, with no party's consent, commits a felony under 18-6702(1) regardless of one-party-consent doctrine. The "intercept" definition reaches both live aural acquisition and "other acquisition" through any device, so modern smartphone, laptop, smart-watch, and connected-device audio is squarely within the statute.
Idaho Code 18-6605: Video Voyeurism and Disclosure of Intimate Imagery
Idaho's primary visual-side statute is Idaho Code 18-6605, a two-prong felony reaching both surreptitious recording and non-consensual disclosure of identifiable intimate imagery. The statute is housed in Title 18, Chapter 66 (Indecency and Obscenity), separate from the chapter 67 audio framework. (c4)
Idaho Code 18-6605 Recording Prong
The recording prong reaches any person who, with intent of sexual gratification or entertainment, installs or uses an imaging device to capture, observe, or otherwise record the intimate areas of another person without consent in a place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Five required elements:
- Imaging device. Any camera, smartphone, hidden camera, body-worn camera, or comparable device.
- Intent. Sexual gratification or entertainment. Pure crime-prevention intent (a Ring doorbell at the front door, a parking-lot security camera) does not satisfy the element.
- Intimate areas. Nude genitals, nude pubic area, nude buttocks, or nude female nipple.
- Without consent. No affirmative consent of the depicted person.
- Place of REP. Open public sidewalks and similar public-facing areas typically do not satisfy this element.
Idaho Code 18-6605 Disclosure Prong (Idaho's NCII Statute)
The disclosure prong reaches any person who intentionally disseminates, publishes, or sells, or who causes another to disseminate, publish, or sell, any image of an identifiable person whose intimate areas are exposed or who is engaged in a sexual act, with intent to annoy, terrify, threaten, intimidate, harass, offend, humiliate, or degrade the depicted person, where the actor knew or reasonably should have known that the depicted person understood the image should remain private and did not consent.
This is Idaho's non-consensual intimate-image (NCII) statute. Some older guides have miscited Idaho Code 18-6711 as the NCII provision; that is not correct. Idaho Code 18-6711 addresses harassing telephone calls and does not reach NCII conduct. The correct cite for both video voyeurism and non-consensual intimate-image distribution is Idaho Code 18-6605. (c4)
A violation under either prong is a felony. The general felony schedule at Idaho Code 18-112 supplies the exposure: up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $50,000 in the absence of a more specific range. Carve-outs cover voluntary public exposure, commercial sexual depictions where the depicted person consented to commercial use, and disclosures made in the public interest.
Audio-Visual Bifurcation in Idaho
Idaho recording law splits cleanly along an audio-visual line. The audio side is Idaho Code 18-6702 (criminal interception, felony), 18-6701 (definitions and REP), and 18-6709 (civil cause). The visual side is Idaho Code 18-6605 (voyeurism plus NCII), 18-6606 (synthetic media), and 67-6628A (election synthetic media). The dividing line is whether the conduct involves the acquisition or use of communicated audio (chapter 67) versus the capture or distribution of imagery (chapter 66 and Title 67). The 2024 deepfake amendment at 18-6606 sits alongside 18-6605 and reaches the synthetic-imagery analog of the disclosure prong: authentic imagery falls under 18-6605, AI-generated explicit imagery falls under 18-6606. A doorbell camera that captures both audio and video at a front porch implicates both sides, walked out in the hidden-camera section below.
Idaho Code 18-6606: Disclosing Explicit Synthetic Media (HB 575, 2024)
Idaho enacted an explicit-deepfake criminal statute in 2024. Idaho Code 18-6606 was added to Title 18, Chapter 66 by House Bill 575 (2024), enacted as Chapter 105 of Session Laws of Idaho 2024, signed by Governor Brad Little on March 19, 2024, with an effective date of July 1, 2024 (House 66-0-4; Senate 35-0-0). (c5)(c6)
The statute defines synthetic media broadly to capture AI-generated and manipulated imagery: any image or video "created or altered using technical means, such as artificial intelligence, to realistically misrepresent an identifiable individual as engaging in conduct in which the individual did not in fact engage." The "such as artificial intelligence" phrase anchors the statute to AI-generated explicit imagery, with broader "technical means" reach for non-AI digital manipulation.
Elements of Idaho Code 18-6606
Four elements: disclosure of synthetic media to another person; depicting an identifiable person in a sexually explicit manner; the depicted person is identifiable from the imagery itself or contextual information; and the actor knows or reasonably should know that the depicted person did not consent.
Penalty Structure Under Idaho Code 18-6606
Idaho's penalty structure uses a step-up framework. A first violation is a misdemeanor. A second or subsequent conviction within five years of a prior conviction is a felony, punishable by imprisonment for up to 10 years, a fine of up to $25,000, or both. A first-offense misdemeanor draws on the general schedule at Idaho Code 18-113 (up to 6 months county jail and a $1,000 fine).
Idaho's Position on Explicit Deepfakes
Idaho is on the leading edge of explicit-deepfake criminalization. Many one-party-consent states have not enacted a dedicated statute and rely on general harassment, NCII, or extortion theories; Idaho's standalone 18-6606 provides a clean criminal hook.
Two baseline corrections matter for any 2024 Idaho deepfake roundup. Idaho HB 127 (2025), an AI-disclosure consumer-protection bill, was introduced in February 2025 and is in committee; it has NOT been enacted as of May 2026. (c7) And Idaho Senate Bill 1399 (2024) is NOT a deepfake or AI bill: S 1399 (Chapter 70 of Session Laws of Idaho 2024) is the Idaho Public Television appropriation. The verified 2024 stack is HB 575 (Idaho Code 18-6606) plus HB 664 / Chapter 172 (election companion) plus Idaho Code 67-6628A FAIR Elections Act.
Penalties: Felony Sentences and Civil Damages Under Idaho Code 18-6709
Idaho's penalty stack runs from the felony floor at Idaho Code 18-6702(3) through the civil cause at 18-6709, with the visual-side offenses at 18-6605 and 18-6606 sitting on the felony schedule at 18-112. The following table shows the structure side by side.
| Statute | Class | Imprisonment | Fine | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Idaho Code 18-6702(3) (audio interception) | Felony (no class letter) | Up to 5 years | Up to $5,000 | Each act of interception, disclosure, or use is a separate offense |
| Idaho Code 18-6605 (voyeurism, recording prong) | Felony | Up to 5 years (18-112 default) | Up to $50,000 (18-112 default) | Sexual gratification or entertainment intent required |
| Idaho Code 18-6605 (NCII, disclosure prong) | Felony | Up to 5 years (18-112 default) | Up to $50,000 (18-112 default) | Harassment-style intent required |
| Idaho Code 18-6606 (explicit synthetic media, first offense) | Misdemeanor | Up to 6 months (18-113 default) | Up to $1,000 (18-113 default) | First disclosure of explicit AI deepfake |
| Idaho Code 18-6606 (explicit synthetic media, second within 5 years) | Felony | Up to 10 years | Up to $25,000 | Express cap in 18-6606 itself |
| 18 U.S.C. 2511 (federal wiretap) | Felony | Up to 5 years | Up to $250,000 | Federal Title III parallel exposure |
Idaho Code 18-6709 Civil Cause of Action
Idaho Code 18-6709 authorizes a private civil action by any person whose wire, electronic, or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of chapter 67. Recovery is structured as the GREATER of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or $1,000 minimum, plus punitive damages and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs on top. A plaintiff with only nominal actual damages still recovers the $1,000 floor or the per-day count, whichever is greater. (c8)
Idaho Code 18-6709 expressly provides that good-faith reliance on a court order is a complete defense to civil OR criminal liability under chapter 67. The rule mirrors the federal good-faith defense at 18 U.S.C. 2520(d).
Idaho's Civil Floor Compared
Idaho's $100 per day or $1,000 minimum is more modest than several sister-state floors: federal 18 U.S.C. 2520 ($100/day or $10,000), Utah Code 77-23a-11 ($100/day or $10,000), South Carolina Code 17-30-50 ($500/day or $25,000), and Tennessee Code 39-13-603 ($10,000 or $100/day). Idaho's felony criminal exposure under 18-6702(3) and the full fee shifting at 18-6709 partially offset the lower civil minimum. 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 on a showing of oppressive, fraudulent, malicious, or outrageous conduct under Idaho Code 6-1604. (c9)
Idaho Code 18-6709 contains no express limitations period. The default 4-year statutory-liability period under Idaho Code 5-224 ordinarily controls. The common-law intrusion claim runs on the 2-year personal-injury period at Idaho Code 5-219, so the shorter clock can run before the audio claim does.
Recording Phone Calls in Idaho (Including Interstate Calls)
Phone-call recording in Idaho is governed by Idaho Code 18-6702. A participant in a wire communication may record without telling the other party, subject to the crime-tort proviso. The rule covers landline, mobile, VoIP (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet, Webex), and over-the-top messaging audio (WhatsApp, Signal voice). A homeowner who records their own incoming and outgoing calls, a small-business owner who records customer service calls in which they participate, and an employee who records a call with their own employer are all squarely within 18-6702(2)(d).
Interstate Call Rule for Idaho
Interstate calls trigger the harder analysis. Idaho borders two-party-consent neighbors on three sides (Washington, Oregon, Montana) plus California for high-volume traffic. The standard 12-state all-party-consent list is California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington.
The default rule when a call crosses state lines: comply with the stricter state's rule. Courts in two-party-consent states typically apply their own statute when one of the parties is physically present in that state, and the federal-floor approach in 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) does not preempt the stricter state rule. (c12) Practical breakdown for an Idaho-based caller:
- Idaho-to-Washington. All-party consent under RCW 9.73.030.
- Idaho-to-Oregon. Participants must be informed under ORS 165.540.
- Idaho-to-Montana. All-party consent under MCA 45-8-213.
- Idaho-to-California. All-party consent for "confidential communications" under Penal Code 632.
- Idaho-to-Nevada. Hybrid jurisdiction. NRS 200.620 is all-party consent for telephonic interception per Lane v. Allstate Insurance Co., 114 Nev. 1176, 969 P.2d 938 (1998); NRS 200.650 is one-party for in-person. For phone, comply with NRS 200.620.
If you cannot reliably know where the other party is sitting, the safest operational rule is to notify all callers at the start of every call and obtain a verbal affirmation. The recommended digital voice recorder and most VoIP platforms provide a recording-notice prompt that satisfies the all-party rule by default.
Business Call Recording in Idaho
Idaho businesses can record calls for quality assurance, training, and compliance, subject to 18-6702(2)(d) for intra-Idaho calls and the stricter sister-state rule for any call where the other party is physically in a two-party state. The standard approach is a recorded announcement at call start ("This call may be recorded for quality and training purposes") plus a verbal confirmation. CFPB Regulation F at 12 C.F.R. 1006.6 ties debt-collector call recordings to the underlying state's consent rule. For a deeper all-party-consent walkthrough, see the all-party consent states hub and the phone recording laws by state directory.
Recording Police and Public Officials in Idaho (Ninth Circuit)
Idaho is in the Ninth Circuit, which covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The Ninth Circuit recognizes a clearly established First Amendment right to record law enforcement and matters of public interest in public places. Two cases anchor the framework.
Fordyce v. City of Seattle (9th Cir. 1995)
Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), is the foundational Ninth Circuit decision on the right to record public events. A Seattle citizen videotaping a public protest march alleged that an officer deliberately struck the citizen's camera. The district court granted summary judgment for the officer; the Ninth Circuit reversed. The court recognized a First Amendment interest in filming matters of public interest and held that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the officer interfered with that interest. Fordyce binds federal courts in the District of Idaho. (c10)
Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (9th Cir. 2018)
Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018), decided August 14, 2018, is the modern Ninth Circuit formulation. Border-policy advocates whose photographs of federal officers at land ports of entry on the United States and Mexico border were destroyed by Customs and Border Protection officers sued under the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit reversed dismissal and held expressly that "the First Amendment protects the right to photograph and record matters of public interest. This includes the right to record law enforcement officers engaged in the exercise of their official duties in public places." The court characterized broad CBP no-photography practices as content-based restrictions in a public forum requiring heightened scrutiny. The underlying case settled in September 2020, binding DHS and CBP to non-interference with First Amendment recording at land ports of entry, but the doctrinal holding remains good law. (c11)
Application to Idaho
Idahoans recording law enforcement performing official duties in public, federal officers at the Eastport and Porthill Canadian border crossings, ICE officers, federal court officers, federal land managers on Forest Service and BLM land, and state and local officers in any public place, have layered protection under both Fordyce and Askins. Idaho is in the consensus camp alongside the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, and 11th Circuits, in contrast to the 8th and 10th Circuits. Idaho has no buffer-zone or X-foot-rule statute analogous to the enjoined Arizona ARS 13-3732.
The right is not absolute. Practical limits: do not physically interfere with officers, record from a reasonable distance, comply with lawful time, place, and manner orders, and recognize that recording inside a place where the officer or a witness has REP (a private home during a warrant execution, an interrogation room) implicates Idaho Code 18-6702 and 18-6701 separately.
Idaho Code 31-871: Body-Worn and Dashboard Camera Retention
Idaho Code 31-871 (Title 31, Counties) governs retention of "law enforcement media recordings." A "law enforcement media recording" is defined as a digital record created by a law enforcement agency in the performance of its duties consisting of a recording of visual or audible components or both. The statute imposes a tiered retention floor based on evidentiary value. (c13)
| Recording Category | Minimum Retention |
|---|---|
| Recordings with evidentiary value | 200 days from creation |
| No evidentiary value, mobile equipment (camera not affixed to a building or structure) | 60 days |
| No evidentiary value, fixed equipment (camera affixed to a building or structure) | 14 days |
"Evidentiary value" includes any encounter about which a valid public records request has been filed by a subject or representative under Idaho Code 74-102 (the Idaho Public Records Act). Filing a public records request before the retention clock expires is the practical mechanism for ensuring footage is preserved long enough to obtain.
Idaho State Police Procedure 06.24 (revised November 2025) supplements at the agency level for ISP troopers and officers, with rules for activation, deactivation, retention, tamper prohibition, and chain of custody. Local Idaho law-enforcement agencies (sheriffs, city police) operate under their own agency policies plus the 31-871 retention floor. (c14)
Idaho has NO statewide body-worn camera deployment mandate analogous to Colorado Revised Statutes 24-31-902. Coverage that asserts an Idaho body-cam deployment requirement overstates the rule. The 31-871 framework is a records-management floor, not a deployment mandate.
For the cross-state framework on recording police, see Can you record police officers on duty.
Recording at Work: Employee and Employer Rules in Idaho
Workplace recording in Idaho sits at the intersection of state wiretap law and federal labor law. Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(d) gives an employee who is a party to a workplace conversation the same one-party-consent right as any other Idaho speaker. An employee in an HR meeting, a performance review, or a private conversation with a manager can record audio without telling the other side, subject to the crime-tort proviso.
NLRB Stericycle: Workplace Recording Rules Must Be Narrowly Tailored
Private-sector employers covered by the NLRA must satisfy the Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) standard before enforcing a no-recording or no-photography handbook rule. To defend the rule against a Section 8(a)(1) facial challenge, the employer must show the rule advances a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a more narrowly tailored rule. A blanket "no recording at work" rule typically fails; a rule limited to specific protected information (trade secrets, patient information, PII) typically survives. (c15)
Idaho is a right-to-work state under Idaho Code 44-2003. Right-to-work status governs union-security agreements; it does not strip NLRB jurisdiction or insulate Idaho employers from Section 8(a)(1) charges.
NLRB GC 25-05: Housekeeping Rescission, NOT Boeing Reinstatement
NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-05, issued February 14, 2025 by Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen, is a housekeeping rescission of prior General Counsel memoranda (GC 21-06, GC 21-07, GC 21-08, GC 23-02, GC 23-05, GC 23-08, GC 25-01, GC 21-01, and GC 24-01) cited to case-backlog management. GC 25-05 did NOT reinstate Boeing, did NOT overrule Stericycle as Board law, and did NOT alter Section 7 protections. Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), remains the controlling NLRB work-rules standard as of May 2026. (c16)
NLRB GC 25-07: Bargaining-Session Surreptitious Recording
NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-07, issued June 25, 2025, treats surreptitious recordings of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se violation of the NLRA, building on Bartlett-Collins Co., 237 NLRB 770 (1978). The directive instructs NLRB Regions to issue complaints under Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3). GC 25-07 is narrowly scoped to bargaining sessions only and does not change Idaho's one-party-consent rule for general workplace audio recording. (c17)
Idaho State Bar Formal Opinion 130 and Practical Rules
Idaho attorneys face an additional ethics layer. Idaho State Bar Formal Opinion 130 governs surreptitious recording by attorneys: what is lawful under Idaho Code 18-6702 may still violate the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct. (c18)
For Idaho employees, audio recording of workplace conversations you participate in is generally lawful under 18-6702(2)(d), subject to a narrowly tailored employer policy under Stericycle and the bargaining-session bar under GC 25-07. For Idaho employers, a no-recording rule must identify the legitimate business interest (trade secrets, PHI under HIPAA, FERPA student data, attorney-client communications) and limit the rule to that information rather than imposing a blanket prohibition. For the cross-state framework, see Can an employer record conversations without consent.
Hidden Cameras, Doorbells, Nanny Cams, and Dashcams in Idaho
Consumer cameras (Ring doorbells, Nest cameras, nanny cams, dashcams) raise both audio and visual issues. The framework runs Idaho Code 18-6702 plus 18-6701 on the audio side, and Idaho Code 18-6605 plus 18-6606 on the visual side, with the REP analysis from 18-6701(2) doing most of the doctrinal work.
Ring Doorbells and Front-Door Cameras
A Ring doorbell that captures audio of visitors approaching the front door is generally permissible. Visitors approaching a front door typically have no reasonable expectation of privacy under Idaho Code 18-6701(2), so the conversation is not a covered "oral communication" in the first place, and the homeowner is a party to recordings of conversations they participate in (one-party consent under 18-6702(2)(d)). Bathroom-facing or bedroom-facing capture is NOT permissible: where the depicted person has REP and the operator has any sexual-gratification or entertainment intent, the recording prong of Idaho Code 18-6605 attaches, and audio-side capture of conversations behind closed bedroom doors implicates 18-6702 separately.
Nanny Cams in Shared Spaces
A nanny cam in shared spaces of the camera owner's own home (living room, kitchen, hallway) is generally permissible for video. Idaho Code 18-6605 requires sexual-gratification or entertainment intent, which a parent monitoring childcare does not satisfy. Audio capture is fine under 18-6702(2)(d) when the owner is present, but an unattended nanny cam can record conversations between the nanny and child to which the owner is NOT a party. The conservative practical rule: video-only mode in shared spaces, no audio. If audio is essential, post a written notice disclosing the recording so that a reasonable nanny would not have a privacy expectation.
Dashcams
Dashcams capturing audio inside the cabin are governed by Idaho Code 18-6702 and the REP analysis. A dashcam in the owner's car recording conversations the owner participates in is squarely within 18-6702(2)(d). A dashcam recording passenger conversations when the owner is not present (loaned, parked, or driven by someone else) is a third-party interception. Outside the cabin, audio of pedestrians and other drivers captured incidentally on a public street is rarely covered: speakers on a public street typically have no REP.
For deeper consumer-camera walkthroughs, see Idaho security camera laws and Is it illegal to video record someone without their consent.
Recording Court Proceedings and Open Meetings in Idaho
Recording in Idaho courtrooms is governed by Idaho Court Administrative Rule 45 (cameras in the courtroom), which vests discretion in the trial judge to permit, restrict, or prohibit electronic media coverage. Standard practice requires a written request in advance. Juvenile and certain victim-protective contexts carry additional restrictions.
Idaho Open Meetings Act, Idaho Code 74-201 et seq., generally permits members of the public to record audio or video at open meetings of public bodies, subject to reasonable rules to maintain decorum. Executive sessions are exempt. Recordings made of an executive session in violation of the Act can support a civil enforcement action.
Idaho Election Deepfakes: Idaho Code 67-6628A FAIR Elections Act
Idaho's election-deepfake civil framework is Idaho Code 67-6628A, the Freedom From AI-Rigged (FAIR) Elections Act, enacted 2024. The companion enabling vehicle is House Bill 664 (2024), Chapter 172 of Session Laws of Idaho 2024, signed March 25, 2024 with an effective date of March 25, 2024. (c19)
67-6628A uses a more technical definition of synthetic media than 18-6606: an audio or video recording of an individual's speech or conduct created through generative adversarial network techniques or other digital technology in a manner that materially changes how a reasonable person would understand the speech or conduct depicted. The GAN-based language anchors the statute to AI-generated political imagery, with broader fallback to "other digital technology" for non-GAN manipulation.
Civil Cause of Action and Affirmative Defense
A candidate whose action or speech is deceptively represented through synthetic media in an electioneering communication may seek injunctive or equitable relief and may bring an action for general or special damages against the information content provider, plus reasonable attorney fees and costs. The remedy is civil-only; 67-6628A is not a criminal statute. Idaho Code 18-6606 reaches the criminal side of explicit synthetic media; 67-6628A reaches the civil side of deceptive election synthetic media.
An affirmative defense exists for an electioneering communication that includes a compliant "This (video / audio) has been manipulated" disclosure. Video disclosures must be prominent, readable, and displayed throughout the visual. Audio disclosures must be read clearly at the beginning, the end, and every two minutes for audio over two minutes. A microsecond text overlay or a barely audible verbal note at the end is not a compliant disclosure.
Idaho 2024 Synthetic-Media Stack: Quick Map
The verified 2024 Idaho stack is Idaho Code 18-6606 (criminal explicit synthetic media; HB 575 / Chapter 105; signed Mar 19, 2024; effective Jul 1, 2024), Idaho Code 67-6628A FAIR Elections Act (civil election framework; HB 664 / Chapter 172, signed Mar 25, 2024), and Idaho HB 127 (2025) (consumer-protection AI-disclosure bill, introduced February 2025, in committee, NOT enacted as of May 2026). S 1399 (2024) is NOT part of the synthetic-media stack: S 1399 is the Idaho Public Television appropriation, Chapter 70 of Session Laws of Idaho 2024.
Federal Overlay: ECPA, FCC, NLRB, and the TAKE IT DOWN Act
Federal law sits alongside Idaho's chapter 67 framework. Several federal pieces matter.
ECPA and the Federal One-Party-Consent Floor
The federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510 to 2522, provides a one-party-consent floor at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). Idaho's 18-6702(2)(d) mirrors the federal default. Federal courts in the District of Idaho apply ECPA in parallel with state law. (c12)
For interstate calls between Idaho and a two-party-consent state, the more restrictive state's rule typically applies as a practical matter to the recording party, even though ECPA itself does not require all-party consent. The federal floor sets a minimum protection; states can layer stricter rules on top.
DOJ JM 9-7.302: Federal One-Party-Consent for Federal Investigators
DOJ Justice Manual 9-7.302 reflects DOJ procedures for warrantless consensual monitoring under 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(c). Federal agents in Idaho federal investigations may record with one party's consent without a warrant, subject to JM internal-approval rules for sensitive cases (Members of Congress, attorney-client situations, members of the news media). (c20)
FCC 24-17: AI Voices in Calls (In Force)
FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17, released February 8, 2024, clarified that calls made with AI-generated voices count as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, requiring prior express consent. The ruling is in force as of May 2026 and has not been vacated. Idaho consumers receiving AI-cloned-voice calls have a federal cause of action under the TCPA in addition to any Idaho Code 18-6702 wiretap analysis. A recipient who is a party to such a call may record under both federal one-party consent and Idaho one-party consent. (c21)
FCC 24-24 One-to-One Consent Rule (VACATED)
FCC Order 24-24 (the one-to-one consent rule) was VACATED by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277, decided January 24, 2025, with the mandate issuing April 30, 2025. The FCC subsequently formally removed the revised 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(9) and reinstated the prior version. Although Idaho is in the 9th Circuit, the 11th Circuit vacatur applied nationally because it set aside the FCC rule. Idaho lead-generation defendants and consumers now operate under the pre-amendment "prior express consent" standard, not the vacated "logically and topically associated" restriction. (c22)
47 C.F.R. 64.501 (Removed)
The historic carrier monitoring-or-notification rule formerly at 47 C.F.R. Part 64, Subpart E was REMOVED effective November 20, 2017. The rule is not a live regulation under any "beep tone" or carrier-notification framing. Older coverage that cites 47 C.F.R. 64.501 as a live federal regulation is out of date. (c23)
TAKE IT DOWN Act: Federal NCII and Deepfake Platform Compliance
The TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12 (S. 146, 119th Cong.), was signed May 19, 2025. The criminal provisions took effect immediately on signing. Covered-platform notice-and-removal compliance, with a 48-hour removal window for flagged content, becomes mandatory May 19, 2026. The Act amends 47 U.S.C. 223 to criminalize the knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI-generated digital forgeries (deepfakes), and requires covered platforms to implement notice-and-removal procedures with a 48-hour removal window. Idaho victims of NCII or deepfake distribution can invoke the federal notice-and-takedown procedure starting May 19, 2026, alongside Idaho Code 18-6605 disclosure-prong felony liability and Idaho Code 18-6606 explicit-synthetic-media liability. (c24)
For a Idaho-aware DMCA and TAKE IT DOWN Act takedown walkthrough, see the DMCA takedown notice generator.
CALEA, HIPAA, CFPB Reg F, and FTC v. Ring
Several other federal pieces matter at the margin. CALEA, 47 U.S.C. 1001 to 1010, imposes wiretap-capability mandates on telecom carriers; it does not change Idaho's one-party rule. The HIPAA Privacy Rule, 45 C.F.R. Part 164, binds Idaho healthcare providers, not patients; a patient may record their own visit under 18-6702(2)(d) without HIPAA implication, but a provider's recording or disclosure of PHI is constrained by 164.502 and 164.530. CFPB Regulation F, 12 C.F.R. Part 1006, ties debt-collector call recordings to the underlying state's consent rule. The FTC v. Ring LLC settlement (May 2023, $5.8 million consumer redress) requires connected-camera vendors to obtain affirmative express consent for human review of audio or video, relevant to Idaho residents using cloud-camera vendors.
Recordings as Evidence in Idaho Courts
Idaho's chapter 67 does not contain an express statutory exclusion provision. Admissibility is governed by the Idaho Rules of Evidence and federal constitutional doctrine. Recordings made in violation of chapter 67 are subject to suppression in criminal proceedings under standard exclusionary doctrine. Idaho Rules of Evidence 901 governs authentication: voice identification by a witness familiar with the speaker, chain-of-custody testimony, distinctive characteristics of the recording, or expert authentication for digital files.
In civil cases (divorce, custody, employment, defamation), Idaho courts generally admit lawfully made participant recordings subject to relevance, hearsay, and probative-prejudicial balancing under Rule 403. In criminal cases, the threshold question is chapter 67 compliance: a participant recording satisfying 18-6702(2)(d) is generally admissible; a third-party recording that violates 18-6702 typically is not. A common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion claim under Restatement (Second) of Torts 652 sits alongside chapter 67 and reaches conduct the statute does not (e.g., visual recording in an REP setting where 18-6605 sexual-gratification intent is absent).
Cross-Reference: Idaho State Spokes and Related Hubs
For deeper walkthroughs, see Idaho security camera laws (Ring, NestCam, nanny cam, doorbell cameras), Can an employer record conversations without consent (NLRB Stericycle, GC 25-05 corrected framing, GC 25-07 bargaining-session per se), Can you record police officers on duty (national circuit-by-circuit framework, including the 9th Circuit Fordyce plus Askins pair), Is it illegal to video record someone without their consent (Idaho Code 18-6605 plus 18-6606), and the DMCA takedown notice generator (NCII and TAKE IT DOWN Act notice-and-removal). For the parent hub and counter-list, see United States recording laws, one-party consent states, and all-party consent states.