Utah

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

Law checked current as of August 15, 2026By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 2026Reviewed August 15, 202612 min read

Key Takeaways

1Utah is a one-party consent state under the Utah Interception of Communications Act, Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4. You may record any wire, oral, or electronic communication you participate in, or where any one party has given prior consent, so long as your purpose is not criminal or tortious.
2Illegal recording is a third-degree felony: up to 5 years in prison (76-3-203(3)) and up to a $5,000 fine (76-3-301). This is harsher than the misdemeanor baseline used in most one-party-consent states.
3A narrow reduced-penalty carve-out under 77-23a-4(10)(b) covers only first-offense, non-tortious, non-commercial interceptions of unscrambled radio communications (Class B misdemeanor for cellular/paging; Class A misdemeanor for other radio types). Encrypted cell calls, standard phone lines, and in-person conversations fall outside it.
4Civil damages under 77-23a-11: the greater of actual damages plus profits, $100 per day of violation, or $10,000, plus punitive damages, attorney fees, and equitable relief. The two-year limitations period runs from discovery, not from the date of violation.
5Voyeurism by recording is codified at Utah Code Ann. 76-12-307 (renumbered from 76-9-702.7 by HB 21, eff. May 7, 2025): Class A misdemeanor for adult-depicted recordings; third-degree felony if the depicted person is a child under 14.
6Utah sits in the Tenth Circuit. Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022), recognized the clearly established First Amendment right to film police on or after May 26, 2019. No Utah statute separately codifies that right.

Utah is a one-party consent state under Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4. If you are a party to a conversation, you may record it without notifying anyone else. Recording without that consent is a third-degree felony carrying up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine, plus civil liability with a $10,000 statutory floor.

Utah recording law at a glance

Question	Answer
Consent rule	One-party (you may record conversations you participate in)
Main statute	(Utah Interception of Communications Act)
When recording is illegal	Recording a wire, oral, or electronic communication without being a party and without any party's consent, or recording for a criminal or tortious purpose
Criminal penalty	Third-degree felony: up to 5 years prison; up to $5,000 fine
Civil penalty	Greater of actual damages + profits, $100/day, or $10,000; plus punitive damages and attorney fees
Hidden cameras	Lawful on your own property in areas with no privacy expectation; 76-12-307 bars secret recording where the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy
Recording police	First Amendment right clearly established as of May 26, 2019 (Irizarry v. Yehia, 10th Cir. 2022)

See the in-depth guides below for specific situations.

Recording in-person conversations in Utah

Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4 covers wire, electronic, and oral communications. The "oral communication" definition under 77-23a-3 requires that the speaker have a reasonable expectation the conversation is private. That means public statements made in a park, lobby, sidewalk, or open meeting generally fall outside the statute and can be recorded without consent.

When a conversation takes place in a private setting, you may record it as long as you are a participant. The one-party rule does not allow you to plant a recording device and leave the room: you must be present in the conversation at the time of recording. A device-only third-party interception is the core violation pattern under 77-23a-4.

The criminal or tortious purpose qualifier is the structural gatekeeper. A recording that is otherwise lawful loses its safe harbor if it is made to facilitate blackmail, extortion, fraud, defamation, or another crime or tort. This mirrors the federal ECPA qualifier at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d).

Utah a small audio recorder and over-ear headphones resting on a stack of legal documents

Recording phone calls in Utah

The one-party consent rule applies equally to landlines, cellular, cordless, and VoIP calls (Zoom, Teams, Google Meet). You do not need to tell the other party the call is being recorded, and there is no statutory beep-tone requirement: the FCC removed 47 C.F.R. 64.501 effective November 20, 2017.

Interstate calls require extra attention. Federal ECPA is a one-party floor; it does not preempt stricter state law. For calls touching California (Cal. Penal Code 632), Washington (), or Nevada phone lines (NRS 200.620 per Lane v. Allstate), the conservative posture is to treat the call as all-party and notify before recording. Utah-Arizona calls are fine under one-party (A.R.S. 13-3005).

For more detail on call recording, including business use cases and multistate scenarios, see the Utah Phone Call Recording Laws sub-page.

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Title 77 Chapter 23a governs audio interception; pure video recording is addressed separately. Utah Code Ann. 76-12-307 (eff. May 7, 2025) criminalizes intentionally using any technology to secretly record a person where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Bathrooms, locker rooms, dressing rooms, and private bedrooms are always protected.

A Ring doorbell or exterior security camera capturing street-side audio generally does not trigger 77-23a-4, because people on a public sidewalk lack a privacy expectation. A camera positioned to capture audio inside a foyer or living room where guests have a privacy expectation can create interception exposure unless a household participant has consented.

A nanny cam in a child's room or a home workspace satisfies 77-23a-4 when a parent or employer is treated as a consenting participant. Best practice is a written disclosure to caregivers and signage at entry points. Audio recording in a workplace where the employer is not a party to the conversation remains an interception even where video is permitted, because the employer is not a "party" under 77-23a-4.

The penalty under 76-12-307 for recording an adult without consent is a Class A misdemeanor (up to 364 days jail, up to $2,500 fine). Recording a child under 14 is a third-degree felony. Distribution of recordings obtained by voyeurism (76-12-308) is a third-degree felony for adults and a second-degree felony (1 to 15 years) for children under 14.

See Utah Security Camera Laws and Utah Voyeurism Laws for full treatment.

Utah over-the-shoulder crop of two people seated across a small table mid-conversation

Penalties for illegal recording in Utah

The presumptive criminal penalty under 77-23a-4 is a third-degree felony for any unlawful interception and for knowing use or disclosure of an unlawfully intercepted communication (subsections (1)(b)(iii)-(iv)). The penalty structure under 76-3-203(3) and 76-3-301:

Conduct	Class	Max Prison	Max Fine
Unlawful interception (presumptive)	Third-degree felony	5 years	$5,000
Use or disclosure of unlawfully intercepted communication	Third-degree felony	5 years	$5,000
First-offense radio carve-out: cellular/paging (unscrambled)	Class B misdemeanor	6 months	$1,000
First-offense radio carve-out: other unscrambled radio types	Class A misdemeanor	364 days	$2,500

The radio carve-out under 77-23a-4(10)(b) requires all four conditions: first offense, no prior conviction under Chapter 23a; not for a tortious or illegal purpose; not for commercial advantage or private financial gain; and the communication must be an unscrambled radio transmission. Encrypted cell calls, standard phone lines, and in-person conversations fall outside the carve-out. Its practical reach is narrow: hobbyist scanner interception of unencrypted emergency channels, accidental baby-monitor capture, CB radio public-band transmissions.

For civil liability, Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-11 entitles a plaintiff to the greater of: (1) actual damages plus the violator's profits, (2) $100 per day of violation, or (3) $10,000 - whichever is largest. On top of the floor, the plaintiff may also recover punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees, reasonably incurred litigation costs, and preliminary or declaratory relief. The two-year limitations period is a discovery rule: the clock starts when the claimant first had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation. Civil recovery does not require a criminal conviction.

Illegally intercepted communications also carry an evidentiary consequence. Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-7 bars the contents of an unlawfully intercepted communication, and any evidence derived from it, from being received in any Utah trial, hearing, grand jury proceeding, or other proceeding before a court, department, agency, or legislative committee.

Utah wooden gavel on a sound block on a judge bench

Recording the police in Utah

Utah sits in the Tenth Circuit. The controlling framework is a two-step progression anchored by two cases.

Frasier v. Evans, 992 F.3d 1003 (10th Cir. 2021) held that any First Amendment right to record police was not "clearly established" in the Tenth Circuit as of August 2014, when the underlying Denver incident occurred. All defendant officers received qualified immunity. This case controls for incidents predating May 26, 2019.

Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022) reversed a qualified immunity grant and recognized the clearly established First Amendment right to film police performing public duties. The underlying incident was May 26, 2019, in Lakewood, Colorado: Officer Yehia obstructed a YouTube journalist filming a DUI traffic stop, then shone a flashlight into his camera. The Tenth Circuit joined six other circuits in recognizing the right. This case controls for incidents on or after May 26, 2019.

Practical guidance for Utah: you may film officers at traffic stops, arrests, protests, and other public encounters. Do not physically interfere with the work, comply with lawful distance orders, and do not trespass to improve your angle. An officer cannot lawfully seize your phone or demand deletion of footage solely because you were filming. Utah has no standalone statutory right-to-record-police comparable to Colorado's C.R.S. 16-3-311; enforcement runs through with attorney fees under .

See Utah Laws on Recording Police for the full treatment.

Utah law library reading room with brass lamp and books in soft focus

Special topics in Utah

Utah Code Ann. Title 13 Chapter 10 is the Unauthorized Recording Practices Act. It governs bootleg recordings of live performances and unauthorized commercial sound recordings - a copyright-adjacent piracy statute. The consent and wiretap rules live in Title 77 Chapter 23a (the Utah Interception of Communications Act). They share the word "recording" and surface together in searches but address completely different conduct.

Body-worn cameras: Title 77 Chapter 7a

Utah's body-worn camera framework is in Title 77 Chapter 7a. Section 77-7a-104 (last amended May 7, 2025) requires officers to activate the camera before any law enforcement encounter or as soon as reasonably possible. The Utah-specific structural feature is 77-7a-104(3): a violation of the activation rules may not serve as the sole basis to dismiss a criminal case or charge. Defense counsel can still use non-activation as one factor in a broader suppression or credibility challenge, but not as a standalone dismissal ground.

NCII: authentic images (76-5b-203) and deepfakes (76-5b-205)

Utah Code Ann. 76-5b-203 criminalizes non-consensual distribution of authentic intimate images (Class A misdemeanor first offense; third-degree felony on recidivism). Utah Code Ann. 76-5b-205 is the separate hook for counterfeit intimate images - the definition expressly covers AI-generated, digitally altered, edited, or manipulated visual depictions of an identifiable person. Charging the wrong section in a deepfake case (203 instead of 205) is a material element mismatch. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) adds a parallel federal criminal prohibition and a 48-hour platform notice-and-takedown obligation effective May 19, 2026.

AI synthetic media and the Utah AI Policy Act

Utah Code Ann. 20A-11-1104 (SB 131 (2024)) requires audible or on-screen AI-content disclosures in political and election communications, with a $1,000 civil penalty per violation. The Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act (SB 149 (2024), codified Title 13 Chapter 72a) brought generative AI within Utah consumer protection law and requires licensed professionals to disclose AI use in consumer-facing interactions. HB 452 and SB 332 (both eff. May 7, 2025) extended the Act's sunset to July 1, 2027 and refined disclosure requirements. For recording-law purposes, the Act is most relevant when downstream AI processing (transcription, voice cloning, biometric extraction) is applied to a recorded file.

Workplace recording and the NLRB framework

Utah's one-party consent rule governs the criminal and civil interception layer for workplace recordings. The federal NLRB layer applies to employer no-recording policies. Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) requires employers to show a no-recording rule advances a legitimate, substantial business interest that cannot be served by a narrower rule. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025) rescinded certain prior General Counsel memoranda but did not overrule Stericycle. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) is narrow: surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions is a per se good-faith violation; it does not change the general workplace recording framework.

Federal overlay: ECPA, FCC, and HIPAA

The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act at 18 U.S.C. 2510-2522 is a one-party consent floor that mirrors 77-23a-4. Utah plaintiffs routinely plead both. FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 2024) classifies AI-generated voices in robocalls as "artificial or prerecorded voice" under the TCPA, with $500 per violation. The FCC One-to-One Consent rule (FCC 24-24) was vacated by the Eleventh Circuit in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025); pre-existing TCPA prior-express-written-consent rules still apply. HIPAA does not block a patient from recording their own medical visit, but a Utah covered entity recording a patient typically needs HIPAA authorization.

Recent legal developments

HB 21 (2025, eff. May 7, 2025): Criminal Code Recodification renumbered voyeurism from 76-9-702.7 to 76-12-307, viewing-only to 76-12-306, and distribution to 76-12-308. Substantive elements and penalty classifications unchanged. 77-23a-4 untouched.
HB 452 and SB 332 (2025, eff. May 7, 2025): Refined the Utah AI Policy Act; extended sunset to July 1, 2027; adjusted disclosure requirements for regulated professions.
77-7a-104 amended (eff. May 7, 2025): Body-worn camera activation rules updated; 77-7a-104(3) no-sole-basis-for-dismissal clause preserved.
TAKE IT DOWN Act (Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025): Federal criminal prohibition on NCII (authentic and deepfake); platforms were required to implement a 48-hour takedown procedure by May 19, 2026 (deadline now passed).
SB 131 and SB 149 (2024, eff. May 1, 2024): Created election synthetic-media disclosure at 20A-11-1104 and the Utah AI Policy Act at Title 13 Chapter 72a.
FCC 24-24 vacated (Jan. 24, 2025, mandate Apr. 30, 2025): Eleventh Circuit set aside the One-to-One Consent rule nationally; pre-existing TCPA consent rules remain.

Utah recording laws in depth

By type of recording

By place or relationship

More Utah 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 Utah attorney.

More Utah Laws

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Utah is a one-party consent state under Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4. You may record any wire, oral, or electronic communication you are a party to, or where any one party has given prior consent, as long as the recording is not for a criminal or tortious purpose. The oral communication definition under 77-23a-3 requires a reasonable expectation of privacy, so conversations in public spaces are generally outside the statute.

Can I record a phone call in Utah?

Yes, if you are a party to the call. Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4 requires only one party's consent, which can be your own. You do not have to notify the other party. For calls touching California, Washington, or Nevada (all all-party or hybrid all-party for phone calls), the conservative posture is to comply with the stricter state's rule and obtain consent before recording.

What is the criminal penalty for illegally recording in Utah?

Illegal recording is presumptively a third-degree felony under 77-23a-4: up to 5 years in prison under 76-3-203(3) and up to a $5,000 fine under 76-3-301. A narrow first-offense carve-out for unscrambled radio interceptions reduces the charge to a Class B misdemeanor (cellular/paging) or Class A misdemeanor (other radio types), but only if the interception is also non-tortious and non-commercial. Standard phone calls and in-person conversations fall outside that carve-out.

Can I sue someone for recording me without consent in Utah?

Yes. Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-11 entitles you to the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits, $100 per day of violation, or $10,000, whichever is largest. You can also seek punitive damages, attorney fees, and injunctive relief. The two-year limitations period is a discovery rule: it starts when you first had a reasonable opportunity to learn about the recording. A prior criminal conviction is not required.

Can I record a Utah police officer?

Yes. Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022), recognized the clearly established First Amendment right to film police performing public duties as of May 26, 2019. An officer cannot lawfully seize your phone or demand deletion of footage because you were filming in a public space. Do not physically interfere with police activity or trespass to improve your angle. Utah has no standalone right-to-record-police statute; enforcement runs through 42 U.S.C. 1983.

Can I record from Utah to California?

California is an all-party consent state under Cal. Penal Code 632. The conservative approach for a Utah-to-California call is to treat the call as all-party: notify the California party at the start and obtain consent on the record. Federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) is one-party but does not preempt stricter state law. The same all-party posture applies to Utah-to-Washington calls under RCW 9.73.030.

Are Ring doorbells and nanny cams legal in Utah?

Generally yes, with limits. A Ring doorbell capturing street-side audio does not trigger the wiretap statute because there is no privacy expectation in public street speech. A camera positioned to capture audio inside a home where guests have a privacy expectation can create interception exposure under 77-23a-4. Pointing any camera toward a bathroom, locker room, or dressing room violates the voyeurism statute at 76-12-307 regardless of whether audio is captured.

Can I record an HR meeting or my boss at work?

Yes, under Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4, if you are a participant in the meeting. One-party consent applies. Your employer may have a no-recording policy; violating it is not a crime under 77-23a-4 but can lead to discipline or termination. NLRB Stericycle (372 NLRB No. 113, 2023) limits how broadly employers can write those policies: a policy must advance a legitimate business interest that cannot be served by a narrower rule.

Is making or distributing a deepfake illegal in Utah?

Yes for intimate-image deepfakes. Utah Code Ann. 76-5b-205 expressly covers AI-generated, digitally altered, or manipulated visual depictions of an identifiable person: Class A misdemeanor first offense, third-degree felony on recidivism, when the depicted person is an adult. If the depicted person is a child, the offense is aggravated to a third-degree felony for a first offense and a second-degree felony on recidivism. Authentic intimate-image distribution is at 76-5b-203. Election deepfakes require AI-content disclosure under 20A-11-1104 (SB 131, 2024), with a $1,000 civil penalty per violation. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act adds a parallel federal criminal prohibition effective May 19, 2025.

Updates

August 15, 2026

Corrected an orphaned citation (an unrelated Consumer Privacy Act link repointed to the actual AI Policy Act chapter), updated the TAKE IT DOWN Act platform-compliance deadline language from future to past tense, and added the child-victim felony-aggravation tier under the deepfake statute (76-5b-205) to the FAQ.

August 15, 2026

Independently fact-checked against current primary sources.

August 15, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

August 15, 2026

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources

August 9, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

August 7, 2026

Corrected the body-worn camera 'sole basis to dismiss' citation from 77-7a-104(11) (a subsection that does not exist) to the correct 77-7a-104(3).

August 7, 2026

Corrected the historical 2026-05-10 changelog entry's reference to a nonexistent '77-7a-104(11)' to the correct '77-7a-104(3)' (the actual no-sole-basis-for-dismissal subsection), matching the fix already made in the article body and the newer changelog entry.

August 7, 2026

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

June 5, 2026

Reviewed and approved by an editor

June 5, 2026

Restructured for readability: condensed 8,000-word page into core sections (in-person, phone calls, hidden cameras, penalties, police, special topics), pushed depth to in-depth index linking all 12 sub-pages. Preserved every statute, case, and penalty. Added compact penalties table. Condensed special topics to single tight paragraphs each. Added at-a-glance table and FAQ refreshed for AEO. Re-verified load-bearing facts (77-23a-4 one-party consent, third-degree felony, 77-23a-11 civil floor, 76-12-307 renumbering, Irizarry 10th Cir. 2022) against primary sources - no corrections required.

May 10, 2026

Major restructure anchored on the Utah Interception of Communications Act 77-23a-4 third-degree-felony presumptive baseline (up to 5 years, up to $5,000) with the narrow 77-23a-4(10)(b) Class B misdemeanor first-offense alternative enumerated as four cumulative conditions (first offense + non-tortious + non-commercial + radio-portion-cellular / cordless / public-band / non-encrypted private channel). Added 77-23a-11 civil cause of action with greater-of-three structure: actual damages plus violator's profits, or $100/day, or $10,000, plus punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees, reasonably incurred litigation costs, and preliminary equitable and declaratory relief; two-year discovery-rule statute of limitations; civil recovery does not require criminal conviction. Added 77-23a-5 use-and-disclosure parallel third-degree felony. Corrected Utah voyeurism citation to 76-9-702.7 per HB 21 (2025) Criminal Code Recodification framing. Distinguished 76-5b-205 counterfeit (AI-generated, deepfake) NCII from 76-5b-203 authentic NCII. Added correct Utah 2024 AI bills SB 131 (election synthetic-media at 20A-11-1104) and SB 149 (Utah AI Policy Act at Title 13 Chapter 72a) plus 2025 refinements HB 452 and SB 332. Added Tenth Circuit Frasier-then-Irizarry progression: Frasier v. Evans, 992 F.3d 1003 (10th Cir. 2021) governs incidents predating May 26, 2019; Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022) recognized the clearly-established First Amendment right to film police on or after that date. Added Utah body-worn camera framework at 77-7a-103 and 77-7a-104 with the 77-7a-104(11) no-sole-basis-for-dismissal qualifier. Reframed NLRB GC 25-05 as a housekeeping rescission (Stericycle remains controlling) and GC 25-07 as the narrow per se bar on surreptitious bargaining-session recording. Updated FCC 24-24 to vacated by 11th Cir. (Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, panel decision Jan 24 2025, mandate Apr 30 2025) and removed the stale 47 C.F.R. 64.501 reference. Added TAKE IT DOWN Act federal compliance (Pub. L. 119-12, signed May 19, 2025; platform compliance May 19, 2026). Added Title 13 Chapter 10 disambiguation paragraph. Replaced commercial-codifier URLs throughout with le.utah.gov, utcourts.gov, ca10.uscourts.gov, uscode.house.gov, congress.gov, nlrb.gov, ftc.gov, fcc.gov, ecfr.gov, federalregister.gov, and media.ca11.uscourts.gov canonicals. Populated keywords array with 15 Utah-specific terms covering the modal cluster (phone, audio, call), the statute-cite anchors (77-23a-4, Utah Interception of Communications Act), and the deepfake / NCII / body-cam / hidden-camera variants.

May 10, 2026

Major restructure anchored on the Utah Interception of Communications Act 77-23a-4 third-degree-felony presumptive baseline (up to 5 years, up to $5,000) with the narrow 77-23a-4(10)(b) first-offense reduced-penalty carve-out. Added 77-23a-11 civil cause of action with greater-of-three structure plus punitive damages, attorney fees, litigation costs, and equitable relief; two-year discovery-rule SOL. Distinguished 76-5b-205 counterfeit NCII from 76-5b-203 authentic NCII. Added Utah 2024 AI bills SB 131 and SB 149 plus 2025 refinements HB 452 and SB 332. Added Tenth Circuit Frasier-then-Irizarry progression. Added Utah body-worn camera framework at 77-7a-103 and 77-7a-104(3). Reframed NLRB GC 25-05 as housekeeping rescission and GC 25-07 as narrow per se bar. Updated FCC 24-24 to vacated. Added TAKE IT DOWN Act. Added Title 13 Chapter 10 disambiguation. Replaced all commercial-codifier URLs with primary sources.

March 23, 2026

Added wearable recording devices section and related FAQs

The Law Behind This Article

This article rests on 19 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.

United States Code Title 18

§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 397 of our articles

Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-08-12 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 2,045 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511) · United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297) · Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained, Alabama Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules and Penalties, Alabama Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting Rules, and Evidence Use

§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 111 of our articles

Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 860 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573) · Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41) · DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Alabama Phone Call Recording Laws: What You Need to Know, Alaska Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules for Landline, Cell, and VoIP (2026), Arkansas Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)

United States Code Title 42

§ 1983Civil action for deprivation of rightsIn forcecited in 48 of our articles

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 282,365 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Ashcroft v. Iqbal (Supreme Court of the United States 2009, 556 U.S. 662) · Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Catrett (Supreme Court of the United States 1986, 477 U.S. 317) · Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs. (Supreme Court of the United States 1978, 436 U.S. 658)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Alabama Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits, Georgia Laws on Recording Police: Your First Amendment Rights (2026), Idaho Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limitations (2026)

§ 1988Proceedings in vindication of civil rightsIn forcecited in 6 of our articles

The jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters conferred on the district courts by the provisions of titles 13, 24, and 70 of the Revised Statutes for the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and for their vindication, shall be exercised and enforced in conformity with the laws of the United States, so far as such laws are suitable to carry the same into effect; but in all cases where they are not adapted to the object, or are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty. In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92–318 [20 U.S.C.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov

Cited in 17,943 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs. (Supreme Court of the United States 1978, 436 U.S. 658) · Gall v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 2007, 552 U.S. 38) · Hensley v. Eckerhart (Supreme Court of the United States 1983, 461 U.S. 424)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: New Mexico Laws on Recording Police: Your First Amendment Rights (2026), Kansas Laws on Recording Police, Virginia Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limitations

Utah Code, Title 20A: Election Code

§ 20A-11-1104Disclosure of synthetic media.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

(1) As used in this section: (a) "Artificial intelligence" means a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments. (b) (i) "Creator" means a person that uses artificial intelligence to generate synthetic media. (ii) "Creator" does not include a person that solely provides the technology used in the creation of the synthetic media. (c) "Digital content provenance" means purely factual information that: (i) details a digital resource's creator, origin, context, history, and editing process; and (ii) conforms to an open industry technical standard. (d) "Generative artificial intelligence" means artificial intelligence technology that is capable of creating content such as text, audio, image, or video based on patterns learned from large volumes of data rather than being explicitly programmed with rules. (e) "Sponsor" means a person that pays for the content that uses artificial intelligence to generate synthetic media. (f) "Synthetic audio media" means audio content that was substantially produced by generative artificial intelligence.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at le.utah.gov

Also relied on in: Utah Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)

Utah Code, Title 76: Criminal Offenses

§ 76-12-307Recorded or photographed voyeurism.In forcecited in 6 of our articles

(1) (a) As used in this section, "sex-designated privacy space" means the same as that term is defined in Section 76-12-309. (b) Terms defined in Sections 76-1-101.5, 76-12-101, and 76-12-301 apply to this section. (2) An actor commits recorded or photographed voyeurism if the actor intentionally uses any type of technology to secretly or surreptitiously record, by video, photograph, or other means, an individual: (a) for the purpose of viewing any portion of the individual's body regarding which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether or not that portion of the body is covered with clothing; (b) without the knowledge or consent of the individual; and (c) under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. (3) (a) Except as provided in Subsection(3)(b), a violation of Subsection (2) is a class A misdemeanor.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at le.utah.gov

Also relied on in: Utah Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Utah Drone Laws (2026): Police Warrants, Prisons & Privacy, Utah Employee Monitoring Laws: Workplace Surveillance and Social Media (2026)

§ 76-3-203Felony conviction -- Indeterminate term of imprisonment.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

A person who has been convicted of a felony may be sentenced to imprisonment for an indeterminate term as follows: (1) In the case of a felony of the first degree, unless the statute provides otherwise, for a term of not less than five years and which may be for life. (2) In the case of a felony of the second degree, unless the statute provides otherwise, for a term of not less than one year nor more than 15 years. (3) In the case of a felony of the third degree, unless the statute provides otherwise, for a term not to exceed five years.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at le.utah.gov

Cited in 79 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2024

Leading cases: State v. Speer (Utah Supreme Court 1988, 74 Utah Adv. Rep. 16) · State v. Alvarez (Utah Supreme Court 1994, 235 Utah Adv. Rep. 61) · State v. Labrum (Utah Supreme Court 1996, 293 Utah Adv. Rep. 19)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

§ 76-3-204Misdemeanor conviction -- Term of imprisonment.In force

A person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor may be sentenced to imprisonment as follows: (1) (a) Except as provided in Subsection (1)(b), in the case of a class A misdemeanor, for a term not exceeding 364 days. (b) (i) Except as provided in Subsection (1)(b)(ii), in the case of a class A misdemeanor under Title 76, Chapter 5, Offenses Against the Individual, for a term not exceeding one year. (ii) For a class A misdemeanor for one of following offenses, for a term not exceeding 364 days: (A) Section 76-5-102.9, propelling a bodily substance or material as described in Section 76-5-102.9; (B) Section 76-5-107.5, prohibition of "hazing"; (C) Section 76-5-113, surreptitious administration of certain substances; or (D) Section 76-5-303, custodial interference. (2) In the case of a class B misdemeanor, for a term not exceeding six months. (3) In the case of a class C misdemeanor, for a term not exceeding 90 days.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at le.utah.gov

Cited in 14 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025

Leading cases: State v. Sanchez (Court of Appeals of Utah 2015, 782 Utah Adv. Rep. 78) · State v. Patience (Court of Appeals of Utah 1997, 323 Utah Adv. Rep. 24) · Richfield City v. Walker (Court of Appeals of Utah 1990, 131 Utah Adv. Rep. 37)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

§ 76-3-301Fines of individuals.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

(1) An individual convicted of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine, not exceeding: (a) $10,000 for a felony conviction of the first degree or second degree; (b) $5,000 for a felony conviction of the third degree; (c) $2,500 for a class A misdemeanor conviction; (d) $1,000 for a class B misdemeanor conviction; (e) $750 for a class C misdemeanor conviction or infraction conviction; and (f) any greater amounts specifically authorized by statute. (2) (a) An individual convicted of a misdemeanor or infraction and sentenced to pay a fine may not be charged by a court: (i) notwithstanding Section 15-1-4, interest on the judgment that in the aggregate is more than 25% of the initial fine; or (ii) that issues an order to show cause under Section 78B-6-317 for failure to pay the fine, interest that is more than 25% of the initial fine. (b) An individual convicted only of an infraction and sentenced to pay a fine may not be charged: (i) by the Office of State Debt Collection, late fees and interest that in the aggregate are more than 25% of the initial fine; or (ii) by a third-party debt contractor of the Office of State Debt Collection, additional fees.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at le.utah.gov

Cited in 9 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: State v. Weeks (Utah Supreme Court 2002, 458 Utah Adv. Rep. 3) · State v. Mitchell (Court of Appeals of Utah 1991, 175 Utah Adv. Rep. 77) · Planned Parenthood Association v. State (Utah Supreme Court 2024, 554 P.3d 998)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

§ 76-5b-203Distribution of an intimate image -- Penalty.In force

(1) (a) As used in this section: (i) "Intimate image" means any visual depiction, photograph, film, video, recording, picture, or computer or computer-generated image, picture, or video, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, that depicts: (A) exposed human male or female genitals or pubic area, with less than an opaque covering; (B) a female breast with less than an opaque covering, or any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; or (C) the individual engaged in any sexually explicit conduct. (ii) "Sexually explicit conduct" means actual or simulated: (A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between individuals of the same or opposite sex; (B) masturbation; (C) bestiality; (D) sadistic or masochistic activities; (E) exhibition of the genitals, pubic region, buttocks, or female breast of any individual; (F) visual depiction of nudity or partial nudity; (G) fondling or touching of the genitals, pubic region, buttocks, or female breast; or (H) visual depiction of defecation or urination for the purpose of causing sexual arousal of any individual.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at le.utah.gov

Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2021

Leading cases: State v. Kitches (Court of Appeals of Utah 2021, 484 P.3d 415)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

§ 76-5b-205Unlawful distribution of a counterfeit intimate image -- Penalty.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

(1) (a) As used in this section: (i) "Child" means an individual under 18 years old. (ii) "Counterfeit intimate image" means any visual depiction, photograph, film, video, recording, picture, or computer or computer-generated image , picture, or video, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, that has been edited, manipulated, generated, or altered to depict the likeness of an identifiable individual and purports to, or is made to appear to, depict that individual's: (A) exposed human male or female genitals or pubic area, with less than an opaque covering; (B) a female breast with less than an opaque covering, or any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; or (C) the individual engaged in any sexually explicit conduct or simulated sexually explicit conduct. (iii) "Sexually explicit conduct" means the same as that term is defined in Section 76-5b-203. (iv) "Simulated sexually explicit conduct" means the same as that term is defined in Section 76-5b-203. (v) "Single criminal episode" means the same as that term is defined in Section 76-1-401. (b) Terms defined in Section 76-1-101.5 apply to this section.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at le.utah.gov

Utah Code, Title 77: Criminal Procedure

§ 77-23a-11Civil remedy for unlawful interception -- Action for relief.In forcecited in 6 of our articles

(1) Except under Subsections 77-23a-4(3), (4), and (5), a person whose wire, electronic, or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover relief as appropriate from the person or entity that engaged in the violation. (2) In an action under this section appropriate relief includes: (a) preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as is appropriate; (b) damages under Subsection (3) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and (c) a reasonable attorney's fee and reasonably incurred litigation costs.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at le.utah.gov

Also relied on in: Utah Audio Recording Laws, Utah Phone Call Recording Laws, Utah Workplace Recording Laws

§ 77-23a-3Definitions.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

As used in this chapter: (1) "Aggrieved person" means a person who was a party to any intercepted wire, electronic, or oral communication, or a person against whom the interception was directed. (2) "Aural transfer" means any transfer containing the human voice at any point between and including the point of origin and the point of reception. (3) "Communications common carrier" means any person engaged as a common carrier for hire in intrastate, interstate, or foreign communication by wire or radio, including a provider of electronic communication service. However, a person engaged in radio broadcasting is not, when that person is so engaged, a communications common carrier. (4) "Contents" when used with respect to any wire, electronic, or oral communication includes any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at le.utah.gov

Cited in 3 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023

Leading cases: State v. Wood (Utah Supreme Court 2023, 532 P.3d 997) · State v. Hebeishy (Court of Appeals of Utah 2022, 522 P.3d 943) · Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidt (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2023, 72 F.4th 1043)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

§ 77-23a-4Offenses -- Criminal and civil -- Lawful interception.In forcecited in 19 of our articles

(1) (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who violates Subsection (1)(b) is guilty of an offense and is subject to punishment under Subsection (10), or when applicable, the person is subject to civil action under Subsection (11). (b) A person commits a violation of this subsection who: (i) intentionally or knowingly intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication; (ii) intentionally or knowingly uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication, when the device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication or when the device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of the communication; (iii) intentionally or knowingly discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire,…

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at le.utah.gov

Cited in 5 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: State v. Wood (Utah Supreme Court 2023, 532 P.3d 997) · State v. Draughon (Court of Appeals of Utah 2026, 2026 UT App 52) · United States v. Maynard (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2010, 615 F.3d 544)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Utah AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Utah Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026, Utah Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)

§ 77-23a-5Traffic in intercepting devices -- Offenses -- Lawful activities.In force

(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person is guilty of a third degree felony who intentionally: (a) sends through the mail, or sends or carries in intrastate, interstate, or foreign commerce any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of the device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications; (b) manufactures, assembles, possesses, or sells any electronic, mechanical, or other device, knowing or having reason to know that the design of the device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications; or (c) places in any newspaper, magazine, handbill, or other publication any advertisement of: (i) any electronic, mechanical, or other device knowing or having reason to know that the design of the device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, electronic, or oral communications; or (ii) any other electronic, mechanical, or other device, where the advertisement promotes the use of the device for the purpose…

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at le.utah.gov

§ 77-23a-7Evidence -- Exclusionary rule.In force

When any wire, electronic, or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of the communication and no evidence derived from it may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision of the state, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at le.utah.gov

§ 77-7a-103Definitions.In force

(1) (a) "Body-worn camera" means a video recording device that is carried by, or worn on the body of, a law enforcement officer and that is capable of recording the operations of the officer. (b) "Body-worn camera" does not include a dashboard mounted camera or a camera intended to record clandestine investigation activities. (2) "Law enforcement agency" means any public agency having general police power and charged with making arrests in connection with enforcement of the criminal statutes and ordinances of this state or any political subdivision. (3) "Law enforcement encounter" means: (a) an enforcement stop; (b) a dispatched call; (c) a field interrogation or interview; (d) use of force; (e) execution of a warrant; (f) a traffic stop, including: (i) a traffic violation; (ii) stranded motorist assistance; and (iii) any crime interdiction stop; or (g) any other contact that becomes adversarial after the initial contact in a situation that would not otherwise require recording.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at le.utah.gov

Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023

Leading cases: State v. Alvarado (Court of Appeals of Utah 2023, 538 P.3d 633)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

§ 77-7a-104Activation and use of body-worn cameras.In forcecited in 2 of our articles

(1) As used in this section: (a) "Health care facility" means the same as that term is defined in Section 78B-3-403. (b) "Health care provider" means the same as that term is defined in Section 78B-3-403. (c) "Hospital" means the same as that term is defined in Section 78B-3-403. (d) "Human service program" means the same as that term is defined in Section 26B-2-101. (2) Except as provided in Subsection (5), an officer using a body-worn camera: (a) shall verify that the equipment is properly functioning as is reasonably within the officer's ability; (b) shall report any malfunctioning equipment to the officer's supervisor if: (i) the body-worn camera issued to the officer is not functioning properly upon initial inspection; or (ii) the officer determines that the officer's body-worn camera is not functioning properly at any time while the officer is on duty; (c) shall wear the body-worn camera so that it is clearly visible to the individual being recorded; (d) shall activate the body-worn camera prior to any law enforcement encounter, or as soon as reasonably possible; (e) shall record in an uninterrupted manner until after the conclusion of a law enforcement…

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at le.utah.gov

Cited in 2 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2023

Leading cases: State v. Alvarado (Court of Appeals of Utah 2023, 538 P.3d 633) · State v. Jessop (Court of Appeals of Utah 2023, 540 P.3d 713)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Utah Police Bodycam Laws: Activation, GRAMA & Release Rules

Revised Code of Washington

§ 9.73.030Intercepting, recording, or divulging private communication—Consent required—Exceptions.In forcecited in 40 of our articles

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful for any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or the state of Washington, its agencies, and political subdivisions to intercept, or record any: (a) Private communication transmitted by telephone, telegraph, radio, or other device between two or more individuals between points within or without the state by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record and/or transmit said communication regardless how such device is powered or actuated, without first obtaining the consent of all the participants in the communication; (b) Private conversation, by any device electronic or otherwise designed to record or transmit such conversation regardless how the device is powered or actuated without first obtaining the consent of all the persons engaged in the conversation.

Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-29 · Read the full section at app.leg.wa.gov

Cited in 221 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026

Leading cases: State v. Salinas (Washington Supreme Court 1992, 119 Wash. 2d 192) · State v. Gunwall (Washington Supreme Court 1986, 106 Wash. 2d 54) · State v. Brown (Washington Supreme Court 1997, 132 Wash. 2d 529)

Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.

Also relied on in: Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026), Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026)

Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →

Sources and References

le.utah.gov.gov
le.utah.gov.gov
le.utah.gov.gov
le.utah.gov.gov
le.utah.gov.gov
le.utah.gov.gov
le.utah.gov.gov
le.utah.gov.gov
le.utah.gov.gov
le.utah.gov.gov
le.utah.gov.gov
le.utah.gov.gov
le.utah.gov.gov
le.utah.gov.gov
Utah Code Ann. Title 13 Chapter 72a -- Artificial Intelligence Policy Act(le.utah.gov).gov
le.utah.gov.gov
le.utah.gov.gov
le.utah.gov.gov
le.utah.gov.gov
le.utah.gov.gov
ca10.uscourts.gov.gov
ca10.uscourts.gov.gov
uscode.house.gov.gov
uscode.house.gov.gov
justice.gov.gov
docs.fcc.gov.gov
media.ca11.uscourts.gov.gov
federalregister.gov.gov
congress.gov.gov
nlrb.gov.gov
nlrb.gov.gov
nlrb.gov.gov
ftc.gov.gov
ecfr.gov.gov
utcourts.gov.gov

Utah recording law at a glance

Recording in-person conversations in Utah

Recording phone calls in Utah

Hidden cameras, doorbells, and nanny cams

Penalties for illegal recording in Utah

Recording the police in Utah

Special topics in Utah