EnglishEspañol
Recording LawsIdaho Laws flagIdaho Laws
Idaho flag

Idaho

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

Independently fact-checkedEditor-reviewedLaw current as of November 1, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamReviewed November 2, 202612 min read

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 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, 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

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 (Idaho Code 18-6709)
Hidden camerasFelony under Idaho Code 18-6605 when used in a private place for a sexual purpose or to sexually degrade or abuse someone
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.

Idaho lets a participant record a call or conversation without telling others; intercepting a communication with no party consenting is a felony with up to 5 years prison and a $5,000 fine.
In Idaho, being in the conversation or having a participant consent is what makes audio recording legal. Hidden cameras have their own felony rule.

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. Recording a conversation that anyone nearby can plainly overhear usually does not violate chapter 67, but the test is the speakers' justified expectation, not the place alone: a hushed conversation on a park bench can still be protected, and secretly recording it without either speaker's consent can be a felony.

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 Idaho's bar on recording for the purpose of committing a crime (Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(e)); federal law also bars recording for a criminal or tortious purpose. 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. Four of Idaho's neighbors are among the 13 states this site counts as all-party: Washington (RCW 9.73.030) and Montana (MCA 45-8-213) for conversations generally, Nevada for phone calls (NRS 200.620), and Oregon for in-person conversations and video calls. California (Penal Code 632) is also all-party. No single rule decides which state's law governs a call between Idaho and one of these states; courts decide it case by case. The California Supreme Court applied California law going forward to a Georgia firm's recording of calls with California clients (Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, 2006), while Washington courts look to the law of the place where the recording is made. Oregon is a common source of confusion: ORS 165.540(1)(c) requires that all participants in an in-person conversation, or a call held through a video conferencing program (ORS 165.535(1) counts both as a 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 while an Idaho-to-Oregon video call is not. 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. The recording consent checker on this site looks up both states at once and shows which consent rule applies before you place the call.

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

desk phone with its handset off the hook lying beside the base

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, Idaho Code 18-6605(2), makes it a felony to use or install an imaging device, without the person's knowledge or consent, at a place where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, when it is done for sexual gratification, for lascivious entertainment or prurient interest, or to sexually degrade or abuse someone. Capturing nudity is not required for this prong; nudity and sexual acts matter for the separate sharing prong in 18-6605(3). 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 person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and the camera is used for a sexual purpose or to sexually degrade or abuse someone, 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. A posted notice is not consent under Idaho Code 18-6702(2)(d), which requires a party's prior consent; at most it may weaken a caregiver's claim to expect privacy, and no Idaho court has decided that. If you want audio, get the caregiver's written agreement.

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. The statute lists intercepting, disclosing, and using an unlawfully intercepted communication as separate prohibited acts, so a person who does more than one may face more than one charge. 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.

Idaho recording penalties run from a misdemeanor with up to 6 months jail for a first explicit deepfake to a felony with up to 10 years for a deepfake of a minor or after a prior conviction.
Illegal audio interception and video voyeurism are felonies in Idaho. Explicit deepfakes are a misdemeanor unless a minor is depicted or there is a prior conviction.
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 or degrading purpose)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)
Idaho Code 18-6606 (first offense, adult victim, no prior)Explicit deepfake disclosureUp to 6 months county jailUp to $1,000
Idaho Code 18-6606 (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. Punitive damages are limited by Idaho Code 6-1604: the conduct must be proved oppressive, fraudulent, malicious, or outrageous by clear and convincing evidence, a punitive claim can be added only with court permission after a hearing, and the award is capped at the greater of $250,000 or three times compensatory damages.

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 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.

These decisions protect recording officers in public places such as streets, sidewalks, traffic stops, and protests, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner limits. Askins involved photography in the public outdoor areas of border ports of entry, and the court sent the case back to decide what restrictions, if any, the government could impose there, so posted rules at a federal facility may still apply. 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), a rule that would reasonably tend to chill employees' protected activity is presumed unlawful unless the employer proves it advances a legitimate and substantial business interest that a more narrowly tailored rule could not serve. A blanket "no recording" rule is hard to defend under that test; a rule limited to trade secrets, PHI, or attorney-client communications is easier to justify. Stericycle remains the Board's standard for judging workplace rules, though the current Board has signaled it may revisit it. Idaho is a right-to-work state under Idaho Code 44-2003, but that does not strip NLRB jurisdiction. In a June 25, 2025 memo (GC 25-07), the NLRB's Acting General Counsel told regional offices to treat secretly recording collective-bargaining sessions as a per se unfair labor practice. The memo is enforcement guidance, not a Board decision, and it does not address ordinary 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, and threats to disclose it to obtain money or other consideration. Since July 1, 2026, under HB 727 (Session Law chapter 121, signed March 25, 2026), the offense is a felony when the depicted person is under 18; it is also a felony for anyone with a prior conviction for a similar offense within five years, and otherwise a misdemeanor. The same 2026 law extended Idaho Code 18-6605 to threats to share real intimate images. 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 referred to the House Business committee, where it saw no further action; it was not enacted.

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. Idaho Code 31-871(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 Idaho Code 31-871(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, the other state's stricter law may also apply; courts decide which law governs case by case, so the safe practice is to get everyone's consent. 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, 2026: HB 727 took effect, adding a felony tier for explicit synthetic media of minors (Idaho Code 18-6606) and covering threats to share intimate images (Idaho Code 18-6605).
  • 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.
  • June 25, 2025: NLRB Acting General Counsel memo GC 25-07 issued, directing regional offices to treat surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions as a per se unfair labor practice.
  • 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.

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, California, or Nevada, those states require all-party consent for phone calls, and no single rule decides which state's law applies; courts decide it case by case. Oregon is different again: ORS 165.540(1)(c) requires that all participants in an in-person conversation or a video conferencing call 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. Because intercepting, disclosing, and using are listed as separate prohibited acts, a person who does more than one may face more than one charge.

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. Punitive damages are limited by Idaho Code 6-1604: they require clear and convincing proof of oppressive, fraudulent, malicious, or outrageous conduct and are capped at the greater of $250,000 or three times compensatory damages.

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 the caregiver agrees in writing to audio recording, because unattended audio recording of conversations the owner is not part of lacks participant consent, and a posted notice is not the same as 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) a rule that would reasonably tend to chill protected activity is presumed unlawful unless the employer proves it serves a legitimate and substantial business interest that a more narrowly tailored rule could not serve. A blanket prohibition is hard to defend under that test. Stericycle remains the Board's standard, though the current Board has signaled it may revisit it.

Can I record the police in Idaho?

Yes. The Ninth Circuit, which includes Idaho, recognizes a 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. Since a 2026 amendment (HB 727, effective July 1, 2026), the offense is a felony, punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment, a $25,000 fine, or both, if the depicted person is under 18; it is also a felony if the discloser has a prior conviction for a similar offense within five years. Otherwise it is a misdemeanor. A companion civil statute, Idaho Code 67-6628A, addresses deceptive synthetic media in election advertising.

Updates

Updated the status of Idaho HB 127 (2025), which died in committee, put the recent-developments list in date order, and restated the NLRB Stericycle test for workplace no-recording rules as a presumption the employer must rebut.

Corrected how interstate calls are handled (courts decide case by case rather than always applying the stricter state's law), named all four all-party neighbors, fixed the elements of Idaho's video voyeurism law, credited the 2026 amendment (HB 727) for the felony tier for deepfakes of minors, narrowed the Askins and NLRB memo descriptions, stated the limits on punitive damages, clarified that a posted notice is not consent to audio recording, and removed three inaccurate statements from the page's update history.

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

Clarified that Oregon's every-participant-informed rule (ORS 165.540(1)(c)) covers video conferencing calls as well as in-person conversations, while phone calls remain one-party.

Corrected the description of Fordyce v. City of Seattle and Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security: the Ninth Circuit recognized a First Amendment right to record police in public, but neither opinion held that right "clearly established" for qualified-immunity purposes.

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; Idaho's separate limit, 18-6702(2)(e), reaches recording for a criminal purpose only.

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. Confirmed Stericycle remains controlling. Added NLRB GC 25-07 (bargaining sessions, per se violation). 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: