Utah

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

By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished June 5, 2026Reviewed July 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 Code Ann. 77-23a-4 (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 (RCW 9.73.030), 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 42 U.S.C. 1983 with attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988.

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(11): 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(11) 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 must implement 48-hour takedown procedure by May 19, 2026.
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. 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

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(11). 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

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