Vermont Recording Laws (2026): No Wiretap Statute Quirk

By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished October 1, 2017Reviewed May 16, 202655 min read

Vermont is a one-party consent state for recording, but uniquely, no Vermont statute creates that rule. Vermont has never enacted a general wiretap or eavesdropping law, so the federal Wiretap Act at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) supplies the consent floor, permitting a party to record without notifying others.

Yes, Vermont is technically a one-party consent state for audio recording. But the label is misleading, because Vermont is the only US state that has never enacted a general wiretap or eavesdropping criminal statute. Recording law in Vermont is built from three layers stacked on top of one another: a federal floor at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d), a state constitutional overlay anchored in Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution and the State v. Geraw trilogy at the Vermont Supreme Court, and a set of targeted criminal statutes at 13 V.S.A. 2605 (voyeurism) and 13 V.S.A. 2606 (nonconsensual intimate imagery, including AI-generated deepfakes after Act 161 of 2024). State v. Geraw, 173 Vt. 350, 795 A.2d 1219 (2002), is the doctrinal anchor for in-home recording and the case every Vermont recording question eventually circles back to.

This page is the Vermont recording-law hub on RecordingLaw.com. It walks the no-wiretap-statute headline, the Geraw / Blow / Brooks Article 11 trilogy, the voyeurism and intimate-image statutes at 13 V.S.A. 2605 and 2606, penalties and civil remedies, cross-border calls with Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Quebec, recording the police under the Second Circuit's unsettled posture, workplace recording and the NLRA, recent Vermont legislation (Act 161 of 2024, Act 75 of 2026, Act 63 of 2025, and the H.121 veto), body cameras and public records, the federal overlay, and a Vermont FAQ block. See also the full list of one-party consent states and the counter-list of all-party consent states.

Vermont is a one-party consent state by default, but only because no Vermont statute imposes a stricter rule. If you are a party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication in Vermont, you may lawfully record it without telling the other parties. The statutory basis is not a Vermont law. It is the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d), which permits a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when that person is a party or when one party has given prior consent. (c1)(c2)

The federal one-party rule comes with one important limit. The recording loses safe harbor when it is "intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State." Because Vermont has no state wiretap statute to add layered limits, the federal tortious-purpose carve-out at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) is the principal practical guardrail on the one-party rule in Vermont. Recording a coworker to document harassment for an HR complaint is not made for a criminal or tortious purpose and remains lawful. Recording the same coworker as part of a plan to blackmail, extort, or intimidate them falls outside the federal safe harbor and exposes the recorder to federal criminal and civil liability under 18 U.S.C. 2511 and 18 U.S.C. 2520. (c1)

Vermont layers three additional sources of law on top of that federal floor. The Vermont Constitution at Article 11 binds state actors and, under the Geraw / Blow line, requires a warrant before law enforcement may secretly record audio inside a person's home. The targeted criminal statutes at 13 V.S.A. 2605 (voyeurism) and 13 V.S.A. 2606 (nonconsensual intimate imagery, including AI deepfakes after Act 161 of 2024) reach specific high-privacy fact patterns. The common-law invasion-of-privacy torts adopted under Hodgdon v. Mt. Mansfield Co., 160 Vt. 150, 624 A.2d 1122 (1992) and its companions supply civil remedies where no statute applies. Together those layers make Vermont a soft-all-party jurisdiction in private spaces even though the headline binary answer is "one-party." (c3)(c5)

Vermont law library reading room with brass lamp and books in soft focus, illustrating the absence of a Vermont wiretap statute

Vermont Has No Wiretap Statute: The Doctrinal Headline

Vermont is the only US state in the country that has never enacted a comprehensive wiretap or eavesdropping criminal statute. A direct review of Title 13 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated confirms that no chapter prohibits private interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. There is no "Vermont Wiretap Act," no general "interception of communications" misdemeanor or felony, and no analog to the wiretap chapters that every other state codifies somewhere in its criminal code. (c4)

The closest chapter is 13 V.S.A. chapter 232 (Vermont Electronic Communication Privacy Act, sections 8101 through 8108). Despite its name, chapter 232 is not a wiretap statute. It regulates only the state-law process by which Vermont law enforcement agencies may compel a service provider to produce stored electronic information. It is the state-law analog to the federal Stored Communications Act, not to the federal Wiretap Act. Chapter 232 contains no private-party criminal liability for eavesdropping or recording. Citing chapter 232 as if it were Vermont's wiretap statute is one of the most common errors in third-party summaries of Vermont recording law, and it is the error this page replaces. (c4)

Because the state criminal code is silent, the operative framework for private-actor recording in Vermont rests on four legs:

Federal floor. 18 U.S.C. 2510 to 2522 (ECPA) supplies the principal criminal interception prohibition, with the one-party consent rule at 2511(2)(d) and the tortious-purpose carve-out built in. (c1)
State constitutional overlay. Vermont Constitution Chapter I, Article 11 binds state actors directly and, under State v. Geraw and State v. Blow, requires a warrant before law enforcement may secretly record audio inside a person's home. (c5)(c6)
Targeted criminal statutes. 13 V.S.A. 2605 (voyeurism, including the in-residence subsection 2605(d)) and 13 V.S.A. 2606 (nonconsensual intimate imagery, post-Act 161 of 2024 expressly covering AI-generated deepfakes) reach specific high-privacy fact patterns regardless of party-status. (c8)(c9)
Common-law tort. Vermont has adopted the four invasion-of-privacy torts under Restatement (Second) of Torts section 652A through Hodgdon v. Mt. Mansfield Co. (intrusion upon seclusion), Lemnah v. American Breeders Service (public disclosure of private facts), and Staruski v. Continental Telephone Co. (appropriation). These supply the principal civil remedies where no statute applies. (c13)(c14)(c15)

State actors are subject to all four layers. Private actors are subject to layers one, three, and four. The Vermont Legislature has periodically considered general wiretap legislation over the past several decades, and none has passed. The 2024 H.121 Vermont Data Privacy Act is the most recent high-profile data-privacy attempt; it was vetoed and the override failed (see the "Recent Vermont legislation" section below).

Why this matters in practice. When a third-party summary says Vermont is a "one-party consent wiretap state," they are technically wrong on the second word. Vermont is a one-party state by default because no Vermont statute imposes a stricter rule. The recording rule actually applied is the federal one. The constitutional overlay, the targeted criminal carve-outs, and the tort framework can independently make a recording unlawful even when the federal one-party rule appears to permit it.

Vermont private correspondence and in-home privacy stack of sealed envelopes with a wax seal on top, illustrating the State v. Geraw Article 11 in-home recording rule

State v. Geraw and Article 11: The In-Home Privacy Rule

Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution is the constitutional spine of Vermont recording law. The text protects "the people" against unreasonable searches and seizures and is read independently of the federal Fourth Amendment by the Vermont Supreme Court. The text reads:

"That the people have a right to hold themselves, their houses, papers, and possessions, free from search or seizure; and therefore warrants, without oath or affirmation first made, affording sufficient foundation for them, and whereby by any officer or messenger may be commanded or required to search suspected places, or to seize any person or persons, his, her or their property, not particularly described, are contrary to that right, and ought not to be granted."

Article 11 binds state actors directly. It does not directly bind private parties, but Vermont's tort and criminal law (voyeurism, NCII, intrusion upon seclusion) draws on the same privacy logic and reaches comparable conduct by private recorders in private spaces. (c5)

The Article 11 Trilogy

Three Vermont Supreme Court decisions, all turning on Article 11, draw the rule of decision for state-actor recording in Vermont:

State v. Brooks, 157 Vt. 490, 601 A.2d 963 (1991), decided November 1, 1991. Police equipped an informant with a body wire and met the defendant in a public shopping-center parking lot in adjacent vehicles. The Vermont Supreme Court held that warrantless transmittal and recording of the conversation did not violate Article 11 because the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in words uttered to an informant outside the home. The court's reasoning was simple: "conversations in places open to passersby are subject to the eyes and ears of passersby." Public-place participant recording by state actors is not regulated by Article 11. (c6)

State v. Blow, 157 Vt. 513, 602 A.2d 552 (1991), decided the same day. Police equipped an informant with an electronic audio transmitter, who entered the defendant's Burlington residence and purchased marijuana from him on two occasions while a detective monitored the conversations from outside. The Vermont Supreme Court held that "warrantless electronic participant monitoring conducted in a home offends the core values of Article 11." Where the State uses an agent to enter a home for the purpose of eliciting and electronically transmitting evidence from an occupant, the State must obtain a warrant supported by probable cause. Blow is the foundational covert-informant in-home case. (c7)

State v. Geraw, 173 Vt. 350, 795 A.2d 1219 (2002), decided March 15, 2002, is the modern doctrinal anchor. On April 17, 2000, two Essex Junction police detectives interviewed the defendant at his kitchen table about allegations of sexual acts with a foster child. The officers identified themselves and were invited inside, but unbeknownst to the defendant they secretly tape-recorded the conversation. The Vermont Supreme Court held that Article 11 prohibits warrantless secret audio recording inside a private home, even by known officers identified to the occupant. The court extended Blow's covert-informant rule to identified, invited officers and squarely rejected the federal Lopez / Caceres line allowing warrantless one-party recording by state actors. The court's signature reasoning is worth quoting directly:

"Any Vermonter who sits around the kitchen table conversing as defendant did here has a reasonable right to expect that he or she is not being secretly monitored or recorded. Our sense of security in face-to-face conversations inside our homes extends at least this far."

State v. Geraw, 173 Vt. 350, 795 A.2d 1219 (2002).

The pairing of Geraw (known officers at the kitchen table) with Blow (covert informant in the home) and Brooks (informant in a public parking lot) yields a clean binary rule for state-actor recording in Vermont: inside a private home is Article 11 territory and requires a warrant; in a public place is not, and warrantless participant recording is permitted. (c5)(c6)(c7)

Two doctrinal companions round out the privacy-zone analysis. State v. Costin, 168 Vt. 175, 720 A.2d 866 (1998) held that warrantless video surveillance in open fields outside the curtilage does not violate Article 11. State v. Bryant, 2008 VT 39, 183 Vt. 355, 950 A.2d 467 reaffirmed that Article 11 extends into the airspace above homes and curtilage, holding that warrantless low-altitude aerial surveillance violated that right. Together with Geraw, Brooks, and Blow, the five cases draw the heightened-private / public / open-fields hierarchy that organizes most Vermont Article 11 recording analysis.

What Geraw Means for Private Actors

Geraw, Brooks, and Blow are state-actor cases under Article 11. They do not directly bind private actors. But Vermont's targeted criminal statutes and the common-law privacy torts pick up the same logic. A private actor who secretly records inside another person's home faces three independent layers of exposure beyond any state-actor analysis: 13 V.S.A. 2605(d), which separately criminalizes intentional surveillance or recording inside a person's home regardless of nudity; the federal tortious-purpose carve-out at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d); and a common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion claim under Hodgdon v. Mt. Mansfield Co. The federal one-party rule is not a green light to plant hidden microphones in someone else's house.

Vermont voyeurism and intimate image statute concealed digital recorder peeking from a shirt breast pocket, illustrating 13 V.S.A. 2605 secret observation

Vermont's Voyeurism and Intimate Image Statutes (13 V.S.A. 2605 and 2606)

Vermont's targeted criminal statutes at 13 V.S.A. 2605 and 13 V.S.A. 2606 do most of the practical work that a general wiretap statute would do in other states. They reach voyeuristic recording, in-residence surveillance regardless of nudity, sexual-conduct recording, and the nonconsensual disclosure of intimate imagery, including AI-generated deepfakes after Act 161 of 2024.

13 V.S.A. 2605 (Voyeurism)

Section 2605 reaches four overlapping fact patterns, each with separate operative language and separate penalties:

Section 2605(b), intimate-area imaging. The core voyeurism prong: "No person shall intentionally view, photograph, film, or record in any format the intimate areas of another person without that person's knowledge and consent while the person being viewed, photographed, filmed, or recorded is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy." The statutory definition of "intimate areas" reaches the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of an identifiable person. (c8)
Section 2605(d), in-residence surveillance. A separate prohibition on intentional surveillance or photographing, filming, or recording of any person in his or her home or residence (whether or not the subject is nude) without that person's knowledge and consent. Section 2605(d) is the workhorse Vermont criminal provision for covert in-home recording prosecutions even when no sexual content is involved. In a state without a general wiretap statute, this is the closest analog. (c8)
Section 2605(e), sexual conduct. Prohibits photographing, filming, or recording of sexual conduct without knowledge or consent in a place with reasonable expectation of privacy. (c8)
Section 2605(c), disclosure. Separately criminalizes the display, publication, or disclosure of an image obtained in violation of subsections (b), (d), or (e). The disclosure offense is graded more severely than the underlying recording offense. (c8)
Section 2605(g), official exception. Preserves a law-enforcement, corrections, Agency of Human Services, and courts exception for lawful official activity.
Section 2605(h), First Amendment newsgathering. Preserves First Amendment newsgathering rights and avoids constitutional overbreadth.

The penalties scale by subsection and by prior history. A first offense under (b), (d), or (e) is punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $1,000. A subsequent offense rises to up to 3 years and $5,000. Disclosure under 2605(c) is punishable by up to 5 years and $5,000. (c8)

13 V.S.A. 2606 (Nonconsensual Intimate Imagery) and Act 161 of 2024

Section 2606 is Vermont's nonconsensual intimate imagery statute, originally enacted in 2015. The operative violation:

"A person violates this section if the person knowingly discloses a visual image of an identifiable person who is nude or who is engaged in sexual conduct, without his or her consent, with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce the person depicted, and the disclosure would cause a reasonable person to suffer harm."

13 V.S.A. 2606(b)(1).

Basic violation is punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $2,000. A for-profit violation (commercial sale or trade of the image) is punishable by up to 5 years and a fine of up to $10,000. Section 2606(c) prohibits website operators from soliciting fees to remove explicit images of a depicted person upon that person's request. Section 2606(d) carries the usual narrow exemptions for public-interest disclosures, reports of unlawful activity, and Section 230-aligned interactive computer service providers. Section 2606(e) creates an express private cause of action with temporary restraining order and permanent-injunction relief, alongside actual damages. (c9)

Act 161 of 2024 (H.878), signed by Governor Phil Scott on June 6, 2024, amended 13 V.S.A. 2606 to expressly cover AI-generated and digitally manipulated nonconsensual intimate imagery through a new "digitization" definition. The amendment reads in operative part:

"'Digitization' means the process of altering an image in a realistic manner utilizing an image or images of a person, including images other than the person depicted, or computer-generated images."

The amendment brings AI-generated deepfake intimate images squarely within the criminal NCII statute on the same footing as traditional photographs and recordings. The Vermont Attorney General publicly thanked the Legislature for the amendment in a May 14, 2024 statement. (c10)

State v. VanBuren, 2018 VT 95, 214 A.3d 791 (Vt. 2019) upheld 13 V.S.A. 2606 against a First Amendment facial challenge through a narrowing construction that exempts images recorded or distributed "in a manner that undermines any reasonable expectation of privacy." VanBuren confirms that the NCII statute survives strict-scrutiny First Amendment review and supplies Vermont prosecutors with a durable enforcement tool.

Vermont penalties and civil remedies empty courtroom witness stand with a small condenser microphone on an adjustable arm

Penalties and Civil Remedies for Illegal Recording in Vermont

Vermont has no general wiretap penalty because there is no wiretap statute. The criminal penalties on the books in Vermont are targeted to specific fact patterns. The civil remedies are weaker than in neighboring one-party states that codify statutory damages (West Virginia and Rhode Island).

Criminal Penalties

Provision	Offense	Penalty
13 V.S.A. 2605(b), (d), (e)	Voyeurism, in-residence surveillance, or sexual-conduct recording, first offense	Up to 2 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $1,000, or both
13 V.S.A. 2605(b), (d), (e) subsequent	Subsequent offense	Up to 3 years and $5,000
13 V.S.A. 2605(c)	Disclosure of images obtained in violation of 2605(b), (d), or (e)	Up to 5 years and $5,000
13 V.S.A. 2606	Nonconsensual intimate imagery (including AI deepfake post-Act 161)	Up to 2 years and $2,000
13 V.S.A. 2606 for-profit	For-profit NCII disclosure	Up to 5 years and $10,000
17 V.S.A. ch. 35, subch. 4-5 (Act 75 of 2026)	Deceptive election synthetic media within 90 days of election	Civil penalties: up to $1,000 basic; up to $5,000 with intent to harm; up to $10,000 repeat; up to $15,000 prior plus harm; additional $5,000 for obstructing investigation
18 U.S.C. 2511	Federal Wiretap Act criminal violation	Up to 5 years imprisonment plus fines

(c1)(c8)(c9)(c10)(c11)

Civil Routes (No Statutory Recording Damages)

Vermont has no statutory recording-interception civil cause of action. Unlike West Virginia (W. Va. Code 62-1D-12) or Rhode Island (R.I. Gen. Laws 12-5.1-13), Vermont has no $100-per-day formula, no $1,000 statutory minimum, and no statutory fee-shifting tied to recording. The available civil routes are:

Common-law invasion of privacy. Hodgdon v. Mt. Mansfield Co., 160 Vt. 150, 624 A.2d 1122 (1992) adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 652A framework and recognized intrusion upon seclusion in Vermont. The operative formulation: "an intentional interference with [her] interest in solitude or seclusion, either as to [her] person or as to [her] private affairs or concerns, of a kind that would be highly offensive to a reasonable [person]." Hodgdon is the workhorse tort for covert-recording civil actions in Vermont. (c13)
Public disclosure of private facts. Lemnah v. American Breeders Service, 144 Vt. 568, 482 A.2d 700 (1984) confirmed that "publicity" in this tort context "requires more than just a limited communication to one or a small group of people; information must reach the public at large or be substantially certain to become public knowledge." Useful when the harm flows from publication of the recording's contents rather than from the act of recording. (c14)
Appropriation of name or likeness. Staruski v. Continental Tel. Co. of Vt., 154 Vt. 568, 581 A.2d 266 (1990) recognizes the appropriation tort for commercial use. Fame is not required. (c15)
13 V.S.A. 2606(e) private cause of action. Express statutory civil remedy where the recording involves nonconsensual intimate imagery (including AI-deepfake intimate imagery post-Act 161). Includes TRO and permanent-injunction relief and actual damages. (c9)
Vermont Consumer Protection Act. 9 V.S.A. 2453 supplies a state-court remedy only when the recording is part of a deceptive trade practice. Vermont Attorney General enforcement is also available. (c16)
Intentional infliction of emotional distress. Available where Vermont's standard statutory injury requirements are met.
Federal civil action. 18 U.S.C. 2520 creates a federal civil cause of action for federal Wiretap Act violations with actual or statutory damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees. Vermonters may file in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont. (c1)

The statute of limitations on Vermont invasion-of-privacy and personal-injury tort claims is three years under 12 V.S.A. 512 (injuries to the person; assault and battery; false imprisonment; slander and libel; damage to personal property). (c12)

Vermont also offers strong anti-SLAPP protection at 12 V.S.A. 1041, which provides an expedited special motion to strike civil claims arising from a defendant's exercise of the right to petition or to speak on a matter of public concern, with mandatory fee-shifting in favor of the prevailing defendant. A defendant sued in tort over a recording that is incidental to constitutionally protected speech, petition activity, or newsgathering can invoke the special motion to strike. (c17)

Vermont cross-border phone call recording smartphone showing a clean audio waveform on a wooden surface

Recording Phone Calls Across State Lines: Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Quebec

Vermont borders four jurisdictions with materially different recording rules. The single biggest practical hazard in Vermont call recording is the cross-border call to a stricter state, particularly Massachusetts or New Hampshire. The general rule applied by courts is conflicts-of-laws conservative: where the parties are in different jurisdictions with different consent rules, courts typically apply the stricter state's law on the assumption that the more protective rule should govern.

Massachusetts (1st Cir., all-party for secret recording). Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, section 99 is functionally a two-party consent statute as to secret recording. The First Circuit in Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020) held that section 99 violates the First Amendment as applied to secret audio recording of on-duty police in public, but the statute remains in force for civilian-on-civilian recording. Practical rule for a Vermont caller to a Massachusetts number: notify and obtain consent before recording.
New Hampshire (1st Cir., two-party). N.H. RSA 570-A requires all-party consent. Same practical rule: notify and obtain consent.
New York (2d Cir., one-party). N.Y. Penal Law 250.05 is a one-party state. The additional layer is the New York Right-to-Record Acts (NY Civil Rights Law 79-p and NYC Administrative Code 14-189), certified to the New York Court of Appeals in Reyes v. City of New York (2d Cir. June 18, 2025). For Vermont-to-New York calls, no notification is required.
Quebec (Canada). The Canadian Criminal Code at section 184(2)(a) is a one-party rule. Vermont-to-Quebec private calls are governed by one-party consent on both sides, although the Civil Code of Quebec at articles 35 to 41 adds civil-law privacy duties that have no clean analog in Vermont law.

For a Vermont-based recorder who picks up the phone often, the safest practical rule is: if any party to the call is physically located in Massachusetts or New Hampshire, treat the call as requiring all-party consent and either obtain affirmative consent or use a recorded notification at the start of the call. New York and Quebec calls follow the Vermont one-party default.

Vermont recording the police in public spaces lapel microphone clipped to a charcoal blazer, illustrating the Second Circuits unsettled First Amendment posture

Recording the Police in Vermont: The Second Circuit's Unsettled Posture

Vermont sits in the Second Circuit, with Connecticut and New York. Vermont is not in the First Circuit. This matters because the First Circuit (covering Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island) has issued a published civilian First Amendment ruling clearly establishing a right to record on-duty police in public. The Second Circuit has not. (c18)

The most recent Second Circuit pronouncement on civilian recording of police is Reyes v. City of New York (2d Cir. June 18, 2025), but it was a procedural certification of New York Civil Rights Law 79-p and NYC Administrative Code 14-189 (the New York Right-to-Record Acts) to the New York Court of Appeals. It was not a constitutional holding on the federal First Amendment right. The Second Circuit declined to resolve the substantive federal-constitutional question, leaving the Second Circuit's posture on civilian recording of on-duty police formally unsettled.

In place of binding Second Circuit precedent, courts in Vermont rely on three sources for record-the-police analysis:

General First Amendment doctrine. The Supreme Court has not directly answered the question, but the body of doctrine on newsgathering, public-forum analysis, and time-place-manner restrictions supplies the framework.
Vermont Constitution Article 11. As Geraw, Blow, Bryant, and Costin make clear, Article 11 can be more protective than the federal Fourth Amendment in private-home, curtilage, and aerial-surveillance contexts. Article 11 applies to state actors, so it constrains Vermont police more than it empowers civilian recorders, but its private-place sensitivities can cut against state-actor counter-surveillance of a recorder.
Persuasive sister-circuit authority. Every federal court of appeals to have addressed the question has recognized at least an open public-place right to record on-duty police. Those decisions are persuasive in Vermont, not binding.

The sister-circuit landscape worth knowing about, framed as persuasive only in Vermont:

Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011): First Amendment right to film public officials performing duties in public. First Circuit, not binding in Vermont. (c19)
Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins, 982 F.3d 813 (1st Cir. 2020): First Amendment protects secret audio recording of on-duty police in public. First Circuit, not binding in Vermont. (c20)
ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012).
Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017).
Turner v. Lt. Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017).
Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995).
Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022).
Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000).

Practical Takeaway for Vermont Recorders

A Vermonter who openly records on-duty police in a public place, from a reasonable distance, and without physically interfering with police activity, is engaged in conduct that every federal court of appeals to address the question has recognized as protected by the First Amendment. The conservative posture is that Vermont state courts and the Second Circuit, presented with the question, would follow the consensus rule.

But because the Second Circuit has not so held in a published civilian case, the right is not "clearly established" for qualified-immunity purposes. A Vermont civilian whose recording is interrupted by an officer arrest may have a stronger underlying First Amendment claim than a Vermont civilian whose recording is interrupted by an Article 11 search; in either case, qualified immunity is more likely to defeat a civil claim against the officer than it would be in First, Third, Seventh, or Eleventh Circuit states. Inside a private space, Vermont Constitution Article 11 plus Geraw may be more protective of the recorder's interests than the federal First Amendment is.

The practical rules of thumb remain stable. Record openly. Stay at a reasonable distance. Comply with lawful orders to move back. Do not physically interfere with police activity. Do not trespass on private property to record. See also our cross-state page on whether you can record police officers on duty for the national circuit-by-circuit framework.

Vermont workplace recording and NLRA two chairs across a round table in an office meeting room

Workplace Recording in Vermont and the NLRA

Vermont has no state wiretap statute, so there is no Vermont-statutory employer-notice rule for one-party audio recording in the workplace. Federal ECPA at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) one-party consent governs. An employee in a meeting is a party to the conversation and may record it without telling other parties.

The principal limits on workplace recording in Vermont are not Vermont laws. They are federal labor and privacy laws plus 13 V.S.A. 2605 in private-zone workplace areas:

Stericycle controlling Board law. Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023) sets the test for workplace rules under NLRA section 8(a)(1). A workplace rule (including no-recording rules) is presumptively unlawful if it has a reasonable tendency to chill protected concerted activity. The employer can rebut by showing the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest AND that the employer cannot advance that interest through a more narrowly tailored alternative. Stericycle replaced the Boeing categorical framework. Vermont private-sector employers covered by the NLRA face genuine Stericycle exposure for any blanket no-recording handbook rule. (c21)
GC 25-05 housekeeping rescission, not Boeing reinstatement. NLRB GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025), issued by Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen, rescinded multiple Biden-era General Counsel memoranda for backlog-management purposes. GC 25-05 is a housekeeping rescission. It does not name Stericycle or McLaren Macomb, does not purport to overrule them, and does not reinstate Boeing. Only the Board (in a case decision) can overrule Stericycle. Treat GC 25-05 as inside-baseline enforcement-priority signaling, not as a change in the controlling work-rule framework. (c22)
GC 25-07 narrow bargaining-session rule. NLRB GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) declares surreptitious recording of collective-bargaining sessions a per se violation of NLRA sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3). The scope is narrow: formal collective-bargaining sessions, not general workplace recording. Vermont unionized workplaces (UVMMC nurses with VFNHP/AFT, Stop & Shop with UFCW Local 328, the Vermont State Employees' Association public-sector unit, Vermont-NEA, AFSCME locals) are subject to GC 25-07 when either side conducts formal contract negotiations. (c23)
Private-zone workplace areas. 13 V.S.A. 2605 reaches workplace recording in restrooms, lactation rooms, changing rooms, and similar high-privacy zones regardless of who the recorder is. Employer no-recording policies typically dovetail with the statute in these zones rather than conflicting with it.

Vermont is not a right-to-work state and private-sector union density is moderate, with significant public-sector density. For a deeper walkthrough, see [Can an employer record conversations without consent?](/can-an-employer-record-conversations-without-consent/).

Vermont AI deepfake legislation Act 161 modern smart speaker device on a kitchen countertop, illustrating synthetic audio and voice cloning

Recent Vermont Legislation: Act 161, Act 75, Act 63, and the H.121 Veto

The 2024 through 2026 legislative cycle produced four pieces of Vermont recording-adjacent law worth knowing about. One is enacted and amends 13 V.S.A. 2606. One is enacted and creates a new election synthetic-media chapter. One is enacted but does not take effect until 2027. One was vetoed and never became law despite widespread media coverage that often miscasts its status.

Act 161 of 2024 (H.878): Deepfake NCII Amendment

H.878, enacted as Act 161 of 2024, was signed by Governor Phil Scott on June 6, 2024. It amended 13 V.S.A. 2606 to expressly cover AI-generated and digitally manipulated nonconsensual intimate imagery through the new "digitization" definition described in the 13 V.S.A. 2606 section above. Act 161 brings deepfake intimate imagery within the criminal NCII statute on the same footing as traditional photographs and recordings. (c10)

Act 75 of 2026 (S.23): Election Synthetic Media Disclosure

S.23, enacted as Act 75 of 2026, was signed by Governor Phil Scott on March 5, 2026. The enrolled act creates 17 V.S.A. chapter 35, subchapter 4 (use of synthetic media in elections) and subchapter 5 (enforcement). The operative rule: within 90 days of a Vermont election at which a candidate will appear on the ballot, a person shall not publish, communicate, or otherwise distribute synthetic media that the person knows or should have known is deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media of a candidate, unless the synthetic media includes a clear disclosure. The required disclosure language: "This media has been manipulated or generated by digital technology and depicts speech or conduct that did not occur." For video, the disclosure must remain visible throughout. For audio, it must play at the start, end, and at least every two minutes for longer recordings. (c11)

Civil penalties scale by intent: up to $1,000 basic; up to $5,000 with intent to cause violence or harm; up to $10,000 for repeat offenders; up to $15,000 for prior violations plus intent to harm; an additional $5,000 for obstructing an investigation. Exemptions cover bona fide news broadcasts with authenticity disclaimers, satire, parody, news websites, broadcasters carrying federally mandated candidate ads, and Section 230-aligned interactive computer service providers hosting third-party content. Enforcement runs through the Attorney General and State's Attorneys with civil investigative authority; affected candidates may seek injunctive relief.

Act 75 of 2026 does not regulate audio or video recording per se. It regulates downstream publication of deceptive synthetic media in the 90-day pre-election window. Vermont recorders are not required to disclose that a recording was generated by AI; election-publishers are.

Act 63 of 2025 (S.69): Vermont Age-Appropriate Design Code Act

S.69 was enacted as Act 63 of 2025 and signed by Governor Phil Scott on June 12, 2025, with an effective date of January 1, 2027. It creates 9 V.S.A. sections 2449a through 2449j and imposes design-standard duties on businesses providing online products and services likely to be accessed by minors. Limited direct relevance to citizen recording, but the Kids Code may interact with consent UX for apps that record minors when it takes effect.

H.121 of 2024 (Vermont Data Privacy Act): VETOED, Not Law

H.121 of 2024, commonly referenced as the "Vermont Data Privacy Act" or "VDPA," was vetoed by Governor Phil Scott on June 13, 2024. The Senate override vote failed on June 17, 2024 by a 14 to 15 margin, where 20 votes were required for two-thirds override. The House had voted 128 to 17 in favor of override, but the Senate's failure to muster a two-thirds majority killed the bill. (c24)

H.121 is not in force as Vermont law. The term "Vermont Data Privacy Act" or "VDPA" should not be used as if it referred to enacted Vermont law. Third-party summaries that frame H.121 as "passed despite the veto" are wrong; the Senate did not override. Governor Scott's veto objections cited the bill's private right of action, the Kids Code provisions, and broad definitions imposing burdens on small and mid-sized Vermont businesses.

The 2025 to 2026 successor data-privacy bills remain pending and have not been signed into law as of May 2026:

S.71 of 2026 (consumer data privacy, private right of action stripped to address the 2024 veto concerns). Passed the Senate; pending in House Commerce and Economic Development. (c25)
H.208 of 2026 (House version retaining a private right of action). Pending in House Commerce.
H.211 of 2026 (Data Broker Delete Act, state-run portal for consumer deletion requests, raising the annual data-broker registration fee from $100 to $900). Passed the House March 25, 2026; pending in Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs.

None of S.71, H.208, or H.211 has been signed into law and none has an Act number as of this refresh.

Vermont does, however, have a live and AG-enforced data-broker regime under 9 V.S.A. chapter 62, originally Act 171 of 2018 and effective January 1, 2019. Vermont was the first US state to require data brokers to register with the Secretary of State, publicly disclose data-collection practices, and adopt comprehensive information-security programs.

Vermont body cameras and public records surveillance camera lens in sharp focus with a blurred urban streetscape behind

Vermont Body Cameras and Public Records Access (20 V.S.A. 1819 and 2369)

Vermont's body-worn camera framework lives at two separate statutes covering two different agency tiers. Both were enacted in the 2019 legislative session and took effect in the 2020 through 2022 window.

20 V.S.A. 1819 (state-police equipping) requires the Vermont Department of Public Safety to ensure that all members of the Vermont State Police Field Force Division who routinely engage with the public related to enforcement of laws are equipped with a body camera or other video recording device. Enacted by 2019 Acts and Resolves No. 154 (Adj. Sess.), section E.209.1; effective October 2, 2020. This is the equipping mandate for the Vermont State Police specifically. (c26)

20 V.S.A. 2369 (statewide policy via VCJC) is the broader policy mandate. The operative provision reads:

"On and after January 1, 2022, each law enforcement agency that authorizes its law enforcement officers to use body cameras shall adopt, follow, and enforce a model body camera policy established by the Council, and each law enforcement officer who uses a body camera shall comply with the provisions of that policy."

20 V.S.A. 2369.

The "Council" is the Vermont Criminal Justice Council (VCJC). The VCJC adopted its Model Body-Worn Camera Policy on December 7, 2022, which governs activation, deactivation, retention, redaction, and public-records-request response. The statute does not mandate that every Vermont law-enforcement agency authorize body cameras; it mandates that any agency that does authorize them must follow the VCJC model policy and ensure individual officer compliance. (c27)

Civilian access to body-worn camera footage runs through the Vermont Public Records Act at 1 V.S.A. 315 to 320. Agencies may withhold under enumerated exemptions at 1 V.S.A. 317(c), including records dealing with the detection and investigation of crime (317(c)(5)), records that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (317(c)(7)), and records concerning ongoing investigations. Denials may be appealed administratively and ultimately to the Vermont Superior Court. (c28)

Watch out. Some older third-party summaries cite "20 V.S.A. 1815" or "20 V.S.A. 1825" as Vermont's body-camera statute. Those are wrong. The operative pair is 20 V.S.A. 1819 (state-police equipping) and 20 V.S.A. 2369 (statewide policy via VCJC). If a source cites 1815 or 1825 as the body-cam statute, treat that source skeptically.

Vermont federal recording law overlay pair of reading glasses folded on top of a closed legal statute book

Federal Recording Law in Vermont: ECPA, FCC, NLRB, TAKE IT DOWN Act

Because Vermont has no state wiretap statute, federal recording law does a great deal more work in Vermont than it does in states with codified two-party rules. The federal stack worth knowing about:

Electronic Communications Privacy Act. 18 U.S.C. 2510 to 2522 is the principal criminal interception prohibition in Vermont, with the one-party consent floor at 2511(2)(d) and the tortious-purpose carve-out built in. Federal civil action at 18 U.S.C. 2520 supplies actual or statutory damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney fees. (c1)
DOJ Justice Manual 9-7.302. Federal one-party-consent default for federal investigators in Vermont, grounded in the Attorney General's memorandum of May 30, 2002. Federal agents may record with one party's consent without a warrant, subject to internal-approval rules for sensitive cases (Members of Congress, attorney-client situations, members of the news media). (c29)
FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (Feb. 8, 2024). Classifies AI-generated voices in robocalls as "artificial or prerecorded" messages under the TCPA at 47 U.S.C. 227, requiring prior express consent. Active and in force as of May 2026. Vermont consumers receiving AI-cloned-voice calls have a federal TCPA cause of action enforceable in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont. (c30)
FCC Order 23-107 / 24-24 (One-to-One Consent Rule). Vacated by Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025), mandate April 30, 2025. The FCC subsequently formally removed the implementing language at 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(9). The pre-amendment TCPA "prior express written consent" standard remains in force. (c31)
47 C.F.R. 64.501. The historic "beep tone" rule for common-carrier recording was removed effective November 20, 2017. Not a live federal regulation. Do not cite as current in any Vermont recording-law context.
TAKE IT DOWN Act. Pub. L. 119-12 (S. 146), signed May 19, 2025. The criminal prohibition on knowingly publishing nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI-generated digital forgeries, took effect on signing. The covered-platform 48-hour notice-and-takedown compliance deadline is May 19, 2026, six days from the publication date of this refresh. By the time most readers reach this page, the platform takedown duty is live. Vermont victims of NCII or deepfake distribution have a federal remedy stacking on top of 13 V.S.A. 2606 as amended by Act 161 of 2024. (c32)
HIPAA Privacy Rule. 45 C.F.R. Part 164. Vermont healthcare providers, plans, and clearinghouses are HIPAA covered entities. HIPAA does not preempt the federal one-party consent rule for patient-side recording in Vermont, but it constrains provider-side recording and disclosure of protected health information.
CFPB Regulation F. 12 C.F.R. 1006.6. Vermont consumers may record their own debt-collection calls under federal one-party consent at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d).
CALEA. 47 U.S.C. 1001 to 1010. Carrier intercept-capability mandates. Does not change the consent standard for individual recording in Vermont.
FTC v. Ring LLC (May 2023). Settled for $5.8 million in consumer redress and required Ring to limit human review of customer videos to narrow circumstances or with express informed consent. Relevant to Vermont households with cloud-camera vendors and Vermont employers using third-party video-monitoring services.

For deeper walkthroughs, see Can an employer record conversations without consent (NLRB Stericycle plus GC 25-05 corrected framing plus GC 25-07 bargaining-session rule), Is it illegal to video record someone without their consent (13 V.S.A. 2605 voyeurism plus 13 V.S.A. 2606 NCII), Can you record police officers on duty (the national circuit-by-circuit framework, including the Second Circuit's unsettled posture), the DMCA takedown notice generator (NCII removal alongside the TAKE IT DOWN Act notice-and-removal procedure), and the parent United States recording laws hub. For the binary state framework, see one-party consent states and all-party consent states.

Vermont Recording Laws by Topic

Each of the 12 pages below covers a specific Vermont recording-law context in greater depth than this hub can. Use them to drill into the rule that applies to your situation.

Vermont Audio Recording Laws
[Vermont Dashcam Laws](/united-states-recording-laws/one-party-consent-states/vermont-recording-laws/dashcam/)
Vermont Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws
Vermont Medical Recording Laws
Vermont Phone Call Recording Laws
Vermont Laws on Recording Police
Vermont Laws on Recording in Public
Vermont School Recording Laws
Vermont Security Camera Laws
Vermont Video Recording Laws
Vermont Voyeurism Laws
Vermont Workplace Recording Laws

Frequently Asked Questions About Vermont Recording Laws

More Vermont Laws

Sources and References

()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()

Is Vermont a One-Party or Two-Party Consent State?

Vermont Has No Wiretap Statute: The Doctrinal Headline