Wyoming Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent and $1,000-a-Day Damages

By Recording Law Editorial TeamPublished October 1, 2017Reviewed May 16, 202664 min read

Wyoming is a one-party consent state under Wyo. Stat. 7-3-702(b)(iv): any party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication may record it without telling the other participants, unless the recording is made to commit a criminal or tortious act. Illegal interception is a felony carrying up to 5 years and a $1,000 fine.

Wyoming is a one-party consent state. Under Wyo. Stat. 7-3-702(b)(iv), a person who is a party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication, or who has the prior consent of at least one party, may intercept the communication, unless the interception is made for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act. The federal floor at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) is congruent. (c1)(c10)

Illegal interception under Wyo. Stat. 7-3-702(f) is a felony with up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of not more than $1,000. Civil exposure under Wyo. Stat. 7-3-710 is a separate and substantially heavier hit: actual damages but not less than $1,000 a day for each day of violation, plus punitive damages, plus reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs. The Tenth Circuit's Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022), recognized a clearly established First Amendment right to film on-duty police in Wyoming as of May 26, 2019. (c2)(c3)(c13)

This page is the Wyoming recording-law hub on RecordingLaw.com. It walks Wyoming's wiretap chapter at sections 7-3-701 through 7-3-712, the under-recognized civil-damages floor at section 7-3-710, the voyeurism camera-felony tier at section 6-4-304 as construed in Kobielusz v. State, 2024 WY 10, the nonconsensual intimate imagery framework at section 6-4-306 paired with HB 0102's new synthetic-NCII felony at section 6-4-307 (effective July 1, 2026), the Tenth Circuit's Frasier-then-Irizarry record-the-police progression, workplace recording under NLRB Stericycle plus the GC 25-05 housekeeping correction, the Montana border-state hazard, body-camera access under section 16-4-203(d)(xviii), Almada v. State and one-party consent as a complete defense, the federal overlay including the TAKE IT DOWN Act, and the criminal-and-civil statute-of-limitations posture. See also the full list of one-party consent states and the counter-list of all-party consent states.

Wyoming is a one-party consent state. Under Wyo. Stat. 7-3-702(b)(iv), a person who is a party to the communication, or who has the prior consent of at least one party, may intercept the communication. If you participate in the conversation, you can record it without telling the other party, subject to the criminal-or-tortious-purpose carve-out at the end of subsection (b)(iv). (c1)

The textual basis is the verbatim text of section 7-3-702(b)(iv):

"Any person from intercepting an oral, wire or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication or where one (1) of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act."

Wyo. Stat. 7-3-702(b)(iv)

The one-party consent exception lives at section 7-3-702(b)(iv). It does not live at section 7-3-704, which several outdated third-party guides incorrectly identify as the consent provision. Section 7-3-704 is titled "Seizure and forfeiture of wire or oral communication intercepting devices"; it authorizes peace officers to seize and forfeit unlawful intercepting devices and is not a consent-or-exception section. If a guide cites section 7-3-704 as the source of one-party consent, the guide is wrong. (c4)

Wyoming's structure tracks federal 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) almost verbatim, including the "criminal or tortious act" carve-out. The criminal-or-tortious-purpose proviso matters in practice. Recording your coworker to extort them is a recording made for the purpose of committing a crime, and the consent defense fails. Recording the same coworker to document harassment for an EEOC complaint or an internal HR matter is not criminal and is not undertaken for unlawful harm, so the section 7-3-702(b)(iv) defense applies and the recording remains lawful. (c10)

Wyoming differs from its border-state neighbors on the unique combination of three features that no competitor surfaces together. First, Wyoming's civil-damages floor at section 7-3-710 is $1,000 per day of violation, not the federal-ECPA $100-per-day or $10,000-greater-of formula. Second, Wyoming sits in the Tenth Circuit, which clearly established the First Amendment right to film on-duty police as of May 26, 2019. Third, Wyoming voyeurism with a camera is a felony, and the Wyoming Supreme Court has held that the act of recording itself satisfies the offense. The sections below walk each of those features.

Black lapel microphone clipped to a charcoal blazer in close-up, illustrating participant audio capture under the Wyoming one-party consent rule at Wyo. Stat. 7-3-702(b)(iv)

Wyo. Stat. 7-3-702: The Wyoming Wiretap Statute

Wyo. Stat. 7-3-702(a) creates the core prohibition. The statute reaches a person who intentionally intercepts, attempts to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication. Subsection (a) also reaches intentional disclosure or use of unlawfully intercepted contents, knowing or having reason to know the information was obtained through unlawful interception. (c1)

Section 7-3-702(b) lists eleven categorical exceptions. The operative civilian exception is at subsection (b)(iv) (one-party consent, discussed above). Three other subsections matter for the broader framework:

Section 7-3-702(b)(ii) (provider assistance). A communications common carrier or its employee may intercept where the interception is a necessary incident to rendering service or to protecting the carrier's rights or property, and may assist peace officers acting under a court order.
Section 7-3-702(b)(v) (peace-officer court order). A peace officer or other person acting under color of law may intercept where authorized by an order issued under sections 7-3-705 through 7-3-708.
Section 7-3-702(b)(vii) (publicly accessible communications). Communications readily accessible to the general public (over-the-air radio, citizen-band frequencies, public-safety bands) fall outside the statute.

Section 7-3-702(b) also addresses FCC personnel monitoring under subsection (b)(iii), telephone-company tracing of obscene or threatening calls under subsection (b)(vi), and certain government-and-public-safety band communications under subsection (b)(viii). The catalog is exhaustive within Wyoming's interception framework, but it is not the only Wyoming statute that touches recording: the voyeurism statute at section 6-4-304 and the nonconsensual-intimate-image statutes at sections 6-4-306 and 6-4-307 sit on top of the wiretap chapter and add their own constraints.

Section 7-3-702(f): Felony Tier and Reduced Misdemeanor Tier

Section 7-3-702(f) sets the penalty schedule. The verbatim statutory text is:

"Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, any person who violates this section is guilty of a felony punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), imprisonment for not more than five (5) years, or both. If the intercepted communication is the radio portion of a cellular telephone communication, a cordless telephone communication that is transmitted between the cordless handset and the base unit, a public land mobile radio service communication or a paging service communication, a violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00), imprisonment for not more than six (6) months, or both."

Wyo. Stat. 7-3-702(f)

Two features of section 7-3-702(f) deserve careful attention. First, the standard penalty is a felony, not a misdemeanor. Wyoming is one of a minority of states that classify general wiretap violations as felonies in their own right. Second, the felony fine cap is $1,000. That is one of the lowest felony fine caps in the U.S. recording-law landscape. Wyoming chose to weight the punishment toward the 5-year prison maximum, not the financial penalty. Some third-party SEO pages erroneously describe the Wyoming felony fine cap as $5,000 or $10,000; the verbatim text of section 7-3-702(f) caps it at $1,000. (c2)

The reduced misdemeanor tier applies only when the intercepted communication is the radio portion of one of the four specific channel types enumerated in section 7-3-702(f): cellular telephone radio portion, cordless telephone radio portion between handset and base, public land mobile radio service, or paging service. The carve-out exists for historical reasons; portions of those legacy radio communications were once treated as quasi-public broadcast signals rather than as private communications. The misdemeanor tier does not apply to general wiretap violations or to non-radio cellular signals.

Sections 7-3-701, 7-3-703, 7-3-704, and 7-3-711

Four adjacent sections complete the wiretap chapter framework.

Wyo. Stat. 7-3-701 is the definitions section. It defines seventeen terms including "wire communication," "oral communication," "electronic communication," "intercept," "electronic, mechanical or other device," and "peace officer," and identifies sections 7-3-701 through 7-3-712 as the operative chapter. The "wire communication" definition is structured around facilities provided by a common carrier, which arguably leaves direct cellphone-to-cellphone wireless transmission at the edge of the definition; Wyoming courts have not authoritatively addressed the gap, but section 7-3-702(f)'s misdemeanor tier expressly addresses cellular telephone radio-portion interception, which is internal-statute acknowledgment that cellular communications are inside the chapter at least for the radio portion. The conservative practical posture is to treat cellphone calls as covered "wire communications" under section 7-3-701 and apply the section 7-3-702(b)(iv) one-party-consent rule. (c5)

Wyo. Stat. 7-3-703 criminalizes the intentional manufacture, assembly, possession, sale, or offer for sale of any electronic, mechanical, or other device knowing or having reason to know that the design renders it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications. The penalty is a felony punishable as in section 7-3-702(f) (up to 5 years and $1,000). Section 7-3-703 parallels federal 18 U.S.C. 2512 and contains carve-outs for providers, government employees, and persons acting under contract with government. It is NOT a consent-or-exception section. (c6)

Wyo. Stat. 7-3-704, titled "Seizure and forfeiture of wire or oral communication intercepting devices," is a contraband seizure-and-forfeiture procedure. It authorizes any peace officer to seize intercepting devices used or possessed in violation of the chapter, with or without process, and declares such devices contraband subject to forfeiture. Section 7-3-704 is NOT the source of any consent exception. The recurring third-party error of citing section 7-3-704 as the one-party consent exception is wrong; the consent rule lives at section 7-3-702(b)(iv). (c4)

Wyo. Stat. 7-3-711 is the exclusivity provision:

"This act shall be the exclusive means by which any interception of wire, oral or electronic communications may be permitted for investigation of the violation of any law, statute or ordinance of the state of Wyoming or any local, municipal or other governmental unit."

Wyo. Stat. 7-3-711

Section 7-3-711 forecloses any extra-statutory state authority to intercept communications for investigation purposes; only the wiretap chapter and an authorized court order under sections 7-3-705 through 7-3-708 will support an interception by Wyoming peace officers. (c7)

Black Wi-Fi router with green status lights on a wooden side table in a softly lit living room, evoking the wire, oral, and electronic communications scope of Wyo. Stat. 7-3-702 and the section 7-3-702(f) felony penalty schedule

Wyo. Stat. 7-3-710: The $1,000-a-Day Civil Damages Floor

Wyoming's civil cause of action at Wyo. Stat. 7-3-710 is the single most distinctive feature of the state's recording-law framework. The verbatim text of subsection (a) is:

"(a) Subject to W.S. 7-3-702(b)(ii), any person whose wire, oral or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this act may recover damages against any person who intercepts, discloses, uses or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use the communications as follows: (i) Actual damages but not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) a day for each day of violation; (ii) Punitive damages; and (iii) Reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred."

Wyo. Stat. 7-3-710(a)

Three features of section 7-3-710(a) deserve careful attention.

First, the $1,000-per-day figure is a floor, not a ceiling. A plaintiff who can prove actual damages above $1,000 per day recovers the higher actual amount. A plaintiff whose actual damages cannot be quantified or are nominal still recovers $1,000 per day for each day the violation continued. The structure means that a single act of unlawful interception, captured continuously over thirty days, supports a baseline recovery of $30,000 even without proof of any specific economic loss.

Second, Wyoming's formula is NOT the federal-ECPA formula. The federal civil cause of action at 18 U.S.C. 2520(c)(2) authorizes recovery of the greater of (i) the sum of actual damages plus violator profits or (ii) statutory damages computed at the higher of $100 per day per violation or $10,000. Several third-party SEO pages incorrectly import the federal "$100 per day or $10,000" formula into Wyoming. They are wrong. The verbatim statutory text of section 7-3-710(a)(i) is "Actual damages but not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) a day for each day of violation." There is no $100-per-day alternative, no $1,000 lump-sum floor, and no "greater of" construction in Wyoming. The per-day figure is ten times the federal figure. (c3)(c11)

Third, the section 7-3-710 stack is unusually plaintiff-friendly. Punitive damages under subsection (a)(ii) are available without statutory cap. Reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs under subsection (a)(iii) are available to a prevailing plaintiff and meaningfully change litigation economics: a plaintiff with a strong liability case against a solvent defendant has a fee-shift hook that federal law and many state analogs lack.

The Good-Faith Court-Order Defense

Section 7-3-710(b) provides the only complete defense to a civil claim under the chapter:

"A good faith reliance on a court order constitutes a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this act."

Wyo. Stat. 7-3-710(b)

The good-faith-court-order defense is symmetric: it applies to BOTH civil and criminal liability under the chapter. The defense matters most for telecommunications providers and other third parties who execute lawful intercept orders; it shields them when they reasonably rely on a facially valid order. It does not shield a person who obtains a court order through fraud or who exceeds the scope of an order in a manner not protected by good faith.

The Civil Statute-of-Limitations Question

A genuine and unresolved question in Wyoming civil-recording law is the statute of limitations on a section 7-3-710 action. Wyo. Stat. 1-3-105 contains three subsections that could plausibly govern:

Section 1-3-105(a)(ii)(B) sets an 8-year limit for actions "upon a liability created by statute other than a forfeiture or penalty."
Section 1-3-105(a)(iv)(C) sets a 4-year limit for "an injury to the rights of the plaintiff, not arising on contract and not herein enumerated."
Section 1-3-105(a)(v)(D) sets a 1-year limit for actions "upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture, except that if a different limitation is prescribed in the statute by which the remedy is given the action shall be brought within the period prescribed by the statute."

Wyoming case law has not authoritatively resolved which subsection governs section 7-3-710 actions. A defense argument that the $1,000-per-day floor and the punitive-damages component make section 7-3-710 a "statute for a penalty or forfeiture" within section 1-3-105(a)(v)(D) would point to the 1-year limit. A plaintiff argument that the actual-damages framework of section 7-3-710(a)(i) makes it a "liability created by statute" within section 1-3-105(a)(ii)(B) would point to the 8-year limit. The intermediate 4-year limit for "injury to the rights" is also live. (c8)

The conservative practical recommendation for Wyoming plaintiffs is to file within ONE year of discovery to preserve all theories. A common-law intrusion-on-seclusion claim arising from the same underlying recording is governed by the 4-year period in section 1-3-105(a)(iv)(C), so a separate state-law privacy claim can survive even after the section 7-3-710 statutory window closes if defense counsel successfully argues for the 1-year construction.

Empty law library reading room with a brass desk lamp and an open book on a wooden table, evoking the plaintiff-friendly civil damages stack under Wyo. Stat. 7-3-710 including the $1,000-a-day floor, punitive damages, and attorney fees

Hidden Cameras and Wyoming Voyeurism Under Section 6-4-304

Wyo. Stat. 6-4-304 is Wyoming's voyeurism statute. It applies a tiered penalty structure that elevates from misdemeanor to felony based on the method of observation and on victim age. (c14)

The three tiers are:

Section 6-4-304(a) (eye-only voyeurism): Misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months imprisonment and a $750 fine, or both. The statute enumerates reasonable-expectation-of-privacy zones including restrooms, baths, showers, dressing or fitting rooms, bedrooms, and under-clothing observation regardless of location.
Section 6-4-304(b) (voyeurism with a camera, video camera, or other image recording device): Felony punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine, or both. Subsection (b)(i) expressly enumerates livestreaming as a qualifying capture mode.
Section 6-4-304(d) (adult perpetrator, minor victim): Felony punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine, or both, where the perpetrator is 18 or older and the victim is under 18.

The verbatim camera-felony text at section 6-4-304(b) is:

"Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both, if he: (i) Commits the offense specified in subsection (a) of this section by knowingly or intentionally capturing an image by means of a camera, a video camera or any other image recording device; or (ii) Uses a camera, video camera or any other image recording device: (A) For the purpose of observing, viewing, photographing, filming, recording, livestreaming or videotaping the intimate areas of another person; (B) Under clothing being worn by the other person; and (C) Without the consent of the other person."

Wyo. Stat. 6-4-304(b)

The "livestreaming" enumeration in subsection (b)(i) is a recent amendment that expressly brings real-time streaming of voyeurism content inside the felony tier. Subsection (g) defines "intimate area" as "any portion of a person's pubic area, buttocks, vulva, genitals, female breast or undergarments intended to cover those portions," and excludes intimate areas visible through clothing or knowingly exposed in public.

Kobielusz v. State, 2024 WY 10

The recent on-point Wyoming Supreme Court decision interpreting the camera-felony tier is Kobielusz v. State, 2024 WY 10, No. S-23-0020 (Wyo. Jan. 24, 2024). Defendant Shaun Thomas Kobielusz, of Sheridan, installed three camera-equipped digital alarm clocks (two in restrooms) in his home and used them to record video of household members and guests. His wife discovered the memory cards in November 2020 during COVID quarantine and turned them over to police. The defendant was convicted on three counts of voyeurism under section 6-4-304(b)(i) and sentenced to consecutive terms of 1 to 2 years (two counts running concurrently). (c15)

The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed. The Court held that the "looking" element of section 6-4-304(b)(i) is satisfied by the act of knowingly or intentionally capturing an image by means of a recording device. The State does NOT have to prove that the defendant subsequently viewed the captured images. The Court also held that the wife had "common authority" over the memory cards and could lawfully turn them over to police without triggering Fourth Amendment search-warrant requirements.

The doctrinal upshot of Kobielusz matters for Wyoming hidden-camera analysis. A camera that captures images automatically and stores them on a memory card or in cloud storage triggers the camera-felony tier even if the defendant never views the footage. The mens rea is satisfied by the knowing or intentional capture; later review is not required. That construction closes a defense argument that would otherwise have allowed a defendant to argue, after the fact, that an automated camera does not satisfy a "looking" element because no human "looked" at the captured imagery.

Ring, Nest, and Connected Doorbell Cameras

Audio and video capture by a Ring doorbell or similar connected camera at the front door of a home is generally lawful in Wyoming. A homeowner is a party to any conversation they themselves participate in under section 7-3-702(b)(iv), and visitors approaching a front door typically have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the sense that section 7-3-701 contemplates for "oral communication." Indoor placement is a different analysis. A camera in a guest bedroom, a rental-unit bathroom, or any space where occupants reasonably expect privacy can trigger section 6-4-304(b) if the intent element matches, and can trigger section 7-3-702 interception even without the sexual-gratification intent if audio is captured. (c16)

The FTC's 2023 settlement with Ring (formerly an Amazon subsidiary) is a federal overlay worth noting. The FTC alleged that Ring allowed employees and contractors to access customer videos and trained algorithms without express consent. The stipulated order required Ring to obtain affirmative express consent for any human review of audio or video and imposed a $5.8 million consumer-redress payment. Wyoming residents using connected doorbells should review the vendor's privacy posture and verify that human-review consent toggles are configured as intended.

Professional broadcast camcorder mounted on a tripod in an empty studio with two studio lights, illustrating the camera-felony tier under Wyo. Stat. 6-4-304(b) as construed in Kobielusz v. State, 2024 WY 10

Wyoming's NCII Statute and HB 0102's New Synthetic-NCII Felony

Wyoming's nonconsensual-intimate-image (NCII) framework as of 2026-05-14 consists of one currently in-force misdemeanor statute and a five-section AI package that becomes effective July 1, 2026.

Wyo. Stat. 6-4-306 (Real-Image NCII; Misdemeanor)

Wyo. Stat. 6-4-306 is Wyoming's currently in-force criminal NCII statute. The verbatim text of subsection (a) is:

"A person eighteen (18) years of age or older is guilty of the offense of disseminating an intimate image if the person: (i) Disseminated an intimate image of another person; (ii) Knew or should have known that the depicted person had a reasonable expectation that the image would remain private and the depicted person did not expressly give consent for the image's dissemination; and (iii) Intended: (A) To humiliate, harm, harass, threaten or coerce another; or (B) For sexual gratification or arousal of others or of the person disseminating the intimate image."

Wyo. Stat. 6-4-306(a)

The offense is a misdemeanor punishable under section 6-4-306(c) by up to 1 year imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. Subsection (d) preserves Section 230 platform immunity for interactive computer services, information services, and telecommunications services for content provided by another person. Wyoming has NOT elevated baseline real-image NCII to a felony, unlike a growing number of states. (c17)

HB 0102 / Enrolled Act 32: The 2026 AI Package

HB 0102 of the 2026 Budget Session (Enrolled Act No. 32 of the House of Representatives), signed by Governor Mark Gordon, is the operative Wyoming deepfake-and-AI vehicle. The act creates five new statutory sections, all effective July 1, 2026: (c18)

Wyo. Stat. 6-4-307 (Unlawful distribution of nonconsensual synthetic sexual material). Felony covering knowing distribution, transmission, or making available of synthetic sexual material that realistically depicts another identifiable person without that person's consent. The penalty under section 6-4-307(c)(i) is up to 10 years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine, or both, for a first offense, and up to 12 years and $10,000 for a second or subsequent conviction under section 6-4-307(c)(ii). Subsection (d) preserves Section 230 platform safe harbor.
Wyo. Stat. 6-4-308 (Unlawful development or distribution of AI system for child pornography). Felony reaching a person who knowingly develops or distributes an AI system specifically designed to create, distribute, or promote child pornography or synthetic sexual material, with intent or knowledge that the system will be so used. Penalty: up to 10 years and $10,000. The provision contains carve-outs for general-purpose systems that produce CSAM-promoting content solely as a result of user prompts, for bona fide school, college, university, museum, and public-library activities, for law-enforcement and judicial activities, and for interactive computer services under 47 U.S.C. 230(f)(2).
Wyo. Stat. 6-1-206 (Artificial intelligence; liability and defense). The verbatim text is:

"(a) Nothing in the Wyoming Criminal Code shall be construed to prohibit the application of this code against activity facilitated by an artificial intelligence system. (b) The use of an artificial intelligence system by a person to commit a criminal offense shall not be a defense to a criminal charge."

Wyo. Stat. 6-1-206

Wyo. Stat. 1-1-143 (AI developer civil immunity). Provides civil immunity for AI developers UNLESS the AI system's primary purpose is illegal activity. The carve-out balances section 6-4-308's criminal liability for development of CSAM-specific systems: a developer of a general-purpose AI system who is misused by an end user retains civil immunity; a developer who builds a system specifically for illegal activity loses immunity.
Wyo. Stat. 6-4-701 (AI self-harm and political-speech offenses). Addresses additional AI offenses including the use of AI systems intended to promote self-harm and AI systems used to censor political speech. The recording-law context surfaces this provision only briefly; it is part of HB 0102's complete five-section AI package.

The penalty mismatch between section 6-4-306 (misdemeanor for real-image NCII) and section 6-4-307 (felony for synthetic NCII) is unusual. Synthetic intimate imagery carries a 10-to-12-year felony exposure starting July 1, 2026, while real-image dissemination of the same victim's actual private photograph remains a misdemeanor. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (discussed in the federal-overlay section below) fills the federal-felony gap for real-image NCII.

The baseline-named candidates HB 113, HB 213, and HB 137 are NOT the enacted Wyoming deepfake bills. SF 0051 of the 2024 Budget Session (election deepfakes) DIED in the House and did not advance. Wyoming has NO election-deepfake disclosure statute as of 2026-05-14; the only enacted AI-and-deepfake coverage lives in HB 0102's five sections and applies on or after July 1, 2026.

Hands typing on a black mechanical keyboard photographed top-down on a dark wood surface, evoking the synthetic NCII felony and AI-system-for-CSAM felony created by HB 0102 of the 2026 Budget Session at Wyo. Stat. 6-4-307 and 6-4-308

Recording the Police in Wyoming: Frasier v. Evans and Irizarry v. Yehia

Wyoming sits in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, along with Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Utah. Two Tenth Circuit decisions, decided in successive years, define the contours of the First Amendment right to record on-duty police in Wyoming. The pairing matters; competitor pages typically cite only one of the two and miss the doctrinal progression. (c12)(c13)

Frasier v. Evans (10th Cir. 2021)

Frasier v. Evans, 992 F.3d 1003 (10th Cir. Mar. 29, 2021), was the Tenth Circuit's first published treatment of the right to record on-duty police. Levi Frasier recorded Denver police officers using force during an August 2014 arrest. The officers detained him and reviewed his tablet looking for the video. He sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 alleging First Amendment retaliation. The Tenth Circuit REVERSED the district court's denial of qualified immunity. The Court held that, as of August 2014, the right to record police officers in public was NOT clearly established within the Tenth Circuit because the Supreme Court had not recognized it, the Tenth Circuit had not recognized it, and general First Amendment principles do not satisfy clearly-established law on a record-the-police claim. The Court also held that officer training does NOT create clearly established law; only judicial decisions do. (c12)

Frasier governs Wyoming-event qualified-immunity analysis for events that occurred BEFORE Irizarry's May 26, 2019 clearly-established date.

Irizarry v. Yehia (10th Cir. 2022)

Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. July 11, 2022) (No. 21-1247), course-corrected. Abade Irizarry, a YouTube journalist, was filming an early-morning DUI traffic stop in Lakewood, Colorado on May 26, 2019 when Officer Yehia parked a cruiser to obstruct Irizarry's view, shined a flashlight into the camera sensors, and then drove the cruiser at the journalists. The district court dismissed the Section 1983 First Amendment claim on qualified-immunity grounds. The Tenth Circuit (panel Matheson, Kelly, McHugh) reversed. (c13)

The Court held that the First Amendment protects the right to film police performing their duties in public AND that this right was clearly established as of May 26, 2019. The Court relied on the persuasive weight of authority from six sister circuits: the First Circuit in Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011); the Third Circuit in Fields v. City of Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2017); the Fifth Circuit in Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017); the Seventh Circuit in ACLU of Illinois v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012); the Ninth Circuit in Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995); and the Eleventh Circuit in Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000). The U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief in support of Irizarry. The Tenth Circuit thereby became the seventh federal appellate circuit to recognize a clearly-established right to record police.

The verbatim Irizarry holding on clearly-established law is:

"In May 2019, when the incident occurred, Mr. Irizarry had a clearly established right to film the traffic stop based on the persuasive weight of authority from six other circuits and our decision in Western Watersheds. Officer Yehia's obvious interference with that right, motivated by Mr. Irizarry's protected conduct, was a violation of clearly established law."

Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022)

Important attribution note. Irizarry v. Yehia is a TENTH Circuit case, not an Eleventh Circuit case. The Eleventh Circuit's Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000), is one of the six sister-circuit decisions Irizarry relied on; it is persuasive authority only and is not binding on the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. Several third-party SEO guides have mis-attributed Irizarry to the Eleventh Circuit. Those guides are wrong.

Doctrinal Upshot for Wyoming Citizens

For Wyoming events on or after May 26, 2019, a civilian who openly records on-duty police in public has a clearly-established First Amendment right under Irizarry, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions and the requirement that the recorder not physically interfere with the officer's duties. Officers who retaliate against peaceful recorders face qualified-immunity denial under Irizarry. For Wyoming events that predate May 26, 2019, Frasier's qualified-immunity rationale may still attach, and a Section 1983 record-the-police damages claim faces a steeper hurdle.

The criminal-side analysis is separate. A Wyoming citizen who records on-duty police in a public place is not committing wiretap interception under section 7-3-702 because (a) the citizen is a party to any conversation they themselves participate in, and (b) officers performing duties in public typically have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the speech aspects of those duties. Recording the police is not, on its own, a Wyoming criminal offense. The doctrinal action is on the federal civil-rights side. (c1)(c13)

Three smartphones arranged around a blank sheet of paper on a wooden desk, evoking citizen documentation of on-duty police under the Tenth Circuit Frasier v. Evans and Irizarry v. Yehia record-the-police progression

The Wyoming Supreme Court anchor for one-party consent as a defense to a section 7-3-702 prosecution is Almada v. State, 994 P.2d 299 (Wyo. 1999). The case arose from a controlled drug transaction in which a consenting confidential informant wore a body-worn transmitting and recording device. The defendant moved to suppress the wiretap and search evidence on state-constitutional and statutory grounds. The trial court denied the motion; the Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed. (c19)

Two holdings of Almada matter for Wyoming recording-law analysis.

First, Wyoming's Communication Interception Act at section 7-3-701 et seq. does NOT require a court order before obtaining information through electronic devices when one of the parties to a conversation has consented to the recording and transmission. One-party consent under section 7-3-702(b)(iv) is a complete defense to a wiretap charge.

Second, the use of a body-worn transmitting and recording device by a consenting informant did not violate the defendant's rights under Article I, Section 4 of the Wyoming Constitution. On that record, the Court declined to read Article I, Section 4 as providing greater protection than the Fourth Amendment in body-wire scenarios. Article I, Section 4 is co-extensive with the Fourth Amendment in body-wire contexts as of Almada.

Almada thus operates on two levels: it forecloses a wiretap-statute defense based on the absence of a court order where one party has consented, and it forecloses a Wyoming-constitutional search-and-seizure defense based on the same theory. The case predates the Wyoming Supreme Court's vendor-neutral citation system (introduced in 2003), so the citation form is the conventional P.2d form rather than a vendor-neutral form. The case has not been overruled and remains binding Wyoming precedent on body-wire scenarios.

Blurred figures behind translucent glass conference-room doors in a modern office, evoking Wyoming workplace recording under Wyo. Stat. 7-3-702(b)(iv) and the NLRB Stericycle plus GC 25-05 plus GC 25-07 framework

Recording at Work: Wyoming Employees, Employers, and the NLRA

Wyoming's one-party-consent rule at section 7-3-702(b)(iv) extends to the workplace. An employee who is a party to a meeting with HR, a supervisor, or a coworker may record the conversation without telling other participants, provided the recording is not made for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act. An employer that is a party to a customer service or quality-assurance call may record the call under the same rule. (c1)

Wyoming is a right-to-work state under Wyo. Stat. 27-7-108 et seq. Private-sector union density is comparatively low. But Wyoming's right-to-work status does not strip the National Labor Relations Board's jurisdiction over Wyoming private-sector employers covered by the NLRA. Federal NLRA overlays apply to non-union private-sector employers in mining, oil and gas, rail, and any other industry where the Board has jurisdiction. (c20)

NLRB Stericycle

The controlling Board standard for facial challenges to no-recording handbook rules is Stericycle, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023). Under Stericycle, the General Counsel first shows that the rule has a reasonable tendency to chill protected activity. If so, the rule is presumptively unlawful, and the employer may rebut by showing (1) the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest AND (2) the employer cannot advance that interest with a more narrowly tailored alternative. Stericycle replaced the prior Boeing categorical framework. (c21)

A broad blanket no-recording rule is presumptively unlawful under Stericycle. A narrowly tailored rule (for example, no recording in HIPAA-covered patient-care areas, or no recording of proprietary production processes in oil-and-gas operations) can survive if the employer can articulate the substantial business interest and demonstrate that a more narrowly tailored rule would not serve it.

NLRB GC 25-05 Is a Housekeeping Rescission, Not a Boeing Reinstatement

A common third-party mischaracterization is to treat NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-05 (Feb. 14, 2025), issued by Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen, as a "Boeing-era reinstatement" or as a rollback of Stericycle. It is not. GC 25-05 rescinded multiple Biden-era General Counsel enforcement-priority memoranda issued by GC Jennifer Abruzzo (including GC 23-02 on electronic monitoring). Acting General Counsel Cowen explained the rescission on case-management grounds: "if we attempt to accomplish everything, we risk accomplishing nothing." GC 25-05 did NOT overrule Board precedent, did NOT name Stericycle, and did NOT purport to reinstate Boeing. Only the Board itself, in a case decision, can overrule Stericycle. (c22)

As of 2026-05-14, Stericycle remains controlling Board work-rule law. Wyoming private-sector employers must continue to defend no-recording handbook rules under the Stericycle framework.

NLRB GC 25-07 on Surreptitious Bargaining-Session Recording

NLRB General Counsel Memorandum GC 25-07 (June 25, 2025) declares surreptitious recording of formal collective-bargaining sessions a per se violation of Sections 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3) of the NLRA (the duty to bargain in good faith). Acting General Counsel Cowen wrote that "the use of surreptitious recordings during the collective-bargaining process is inconsistent with the openness and mutual trust necessary for the process to function as contemplated by the Act." The memo builds on Bartlett-Collins Co., 237 NLRB 770 (1978). (c23)

GC 25-07 is narrow. It applies only to formal collective-bargaining sessions, not to general workplace recording. It does NOT modify Stericycle. Wyoming workplaces covered by the NLRA, including BNSF and Union Pacific rail crews (subject to the federal Railway Labor Act for some purposes), certain mining operations, and unionized building-trades operations, should treat surreptitious recording of bargaining sessions as a duty-to-bargain ULP risk.

Wireless earbuds in their open charging case on a white desk with a green status LED, illustrating a cross-border voice call where the Montana all-party rule at Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213 attaches even when one party is in Wyoming

Recording Across State Lines: The Montana Border-State Hazard

Wyoming borders six states. Five are one-party consent jurisdictions for civilian recording: Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah. The exception is Montana. (c24)

Montana is a hidden-device / notification state under Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213, titled "Privacy in communications." Section 45-8-213(1)(c) prohibits knowingly recording a conversation by use of a hidden electronic or mechanical device without the knowledge of all parties. Critically, recording is lawful -- and does not require all-party consent -- when one party gives warning of the recording (MCA 45-8-213(2)(a)(iii)). The offense targets concealed recording without notice, not open or disclosed recording.

The cross-border practical rule for Wyoming callers is straightforward. A Wyoming resident phoning into Montana, or a Montana resident phoning into Wyoming, should comply with Montana's stricter all-party rule. Federal 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) supplies a one-party-consent floor for federal criminal purposes, but the stricter state law typically applies in tort and may be cited in a civil suit. Cross-border recording made for litigation use, employment use, or any other purpose with civil exposure should default to the all-party rule.

The same caution applies for Wyoming callers phoning into any other all-party-consent state. The list is California (Cal. Penal Code 632), Connecticut (with statutory carve-outs at Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-570d), Delaware (Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, section 2402), Florida (Fla. Stat. 934.03), Illinois (720 ILCS 5/14-2), Maryland (Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-402), Massachusetts (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272 section 99), Michigan (under a contested two-party reading of Mich. Comp. Laws 750.539c), Montana (Mont. Code Ann. 45-8-213), Nevada (Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.620 for wire communications), New Hampshire (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 570-A:2), Oregon (Or. Rev. Stat. 165.540 for in-person conversations), Pennsylvania (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. 5704), and Washington (Wash. Rev. Code 9.73.030). For a current cross-jurisdictional comparison, see the all-party-consent states list.

Audio recording equipment laid out on a dark surface in soft editorial lighting, evoking peace-officer recording as defined in Wyo. Stat. 16-4-203(d)(xviii) and the custodian-discretion public-records framework for Wyoming body-cam footage

Body Cameras and Public Records in Wyoming

Wyoming has NO dedicated body-worn-camera operations or deployment statute. The only statutory framework governing public access to peace-officer recordings is the Wyoming Public Records Act exception at Wyo. Stat. 16-4-203(d)(xviii). Body-camera deployment by Wyoming law-enforcement agencies is voluntary and local. (c25)

Section 16-4-203(d)(xviii) defines "peace officer recording" as any audio or video data recorded by a peace officer (as defined in Wyo. Stat. 6-1-104(a)(vi)) on a camera or other device provided to or used by the peace officer in the course of official business. The custodian is REQUIRED to allow inspection by law-enforcement personnel and public agencies for official business or pursuant to court order. The custodian MAY allow public inspection in five specified circumstances:

(A) For law-enforcement official business;
(B) By the person in interest (typically the subject of the recording);
(C) When the information involves an incident of deadly force or serious bodily injury;
(D) In response to a complaint against law-enforcement personnel when not contrary to the public interest; or
(E) In the interest of public safety.

The framework is custodian-discretion, not custodian-mandatory. A requester who satisfies one of the five enumerated grounds is not entitled to the recording as of right; the custodian retains discretion to deny based on countervailing considerations (active investigation, third-party privacy, witness identification, juvenile considerations, and the like).

Multiple 2024 and 2025 bills attempted to expand public access (including HB 0163 of 2024 and SF 0073 of 2024). All failed or were tabled in committee. The Wyoming Highway Patrol, per Colonel Kebin Haller's 2024 and 2025 legislative testimony, uses dash-cam recording extensively and stores footage on physical DVDs rather than on a cloud platform. The Highway Patrol is NOT statutorily required to deploy body cameras and the agency's posture as of 2026-05-14 is voluntary deployment, retained largely at the local-agency level.

Two phantom citations sometimes appear in third-party Wyoming body-cam summaries. Section 7-2-105 is "Disposition and appraisal of property seized or held," not a body-camera provision. Section 9-1-209 likewise does not address body cameras. The only Wyoming body-cam framework is the section 16-4-203(d)(xviii) public-records exception.

Vintage telephone and recording equipment still life in sepia editorial lighting, evoking the federal ECPA wiretap floor at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d) and the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act May 19, 2026 covered-platform compliance deadline

Federal Recording Overlay in Wyoming: ECPA, FCC, TAKE IT DOWN Act

Federal law overlays Wyoming's chapter 7-3 framework. Four federal regimes matter most for recording analysis in Wyoming.

ECPA (18 U.S.C. 2510 to 2522 and 2520)

The federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act sets the one-party-consent floor for wire, oral, and electronic communications at 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). The verbatim text is:

"It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State."

18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d)

Wyoming's section 7-3-702(b)(iv) tracks the federal text almost verbatim. The federal civil cause of action at 18 U.S.C. 2520(c)(2) authorizes recovery of the greater of (i) actual damages plus violator profits or (ii) statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day per violation or $10,000. Section 2520(e) sets a two-year statute of limitations from the date the claimant first had a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation. Wyoming plaintiffs who can plead state-law section 7-3-710 generally prefer the Wyoming forum because of the $1,000-per-day floor and the fee-shift; the federal cause sits beneath as a fallback for cases that fail under section 7-3-710 for any reason. (c10)(c11)

DOJ Justice Manual 9-7.302

For federal investigations conducted by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Wyoming, federal agents may record with one party's consent without a warrant under 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(c), subject to DOJ Justice Manual section 9-7.302 internal-approval requirements for sensitive cases. The Attorney General Memorandum of May 30, 2002 sets approval procedures for communications involving members of Congress, federal judges, attorneys, members of the news media, and certain other categories. State-prosecutor counterparts (the Wyoming Attorney General's Division of Criminal Investigation, county attorneys, district attorneys) operate under section 7-3-702 plus the Wyoming AG criminal-division coordination policies. (c26)

FCC TCPA Stack

The federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act at 47 U.S.C. 227 imposes a separate consent regime on automated and prerecorded calls and texts. Three updates from 2024 and 2025 matter for Wyoming practice:

FCC Declaratory Ruling 24-17 (CG Docket No. 23-362; adopted Feb. 2, 2024; released Feb. 8, 2024) holds that AI-generated voice calls fall within the TCPA's "artificial or prerecorded voice" restriction at 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A) and (B). The ruling is in force. AI-cloned voice calls into or out of Wyoming require prior express consent of the called party. (c27)
Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, No. 24-10277 (11th Cir. Jan. 24, 2025) (mandate Apr. 30, 2025), VACATED FCC Order 23-107 / FCC 24-24 (the one-to-one consent rule revising 47 C.F.R. 64.1200(f)(9)). Although Wyoming sits in the Tenth Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit's vacatur applies nationally because it set aside the FCC rule itself. The pre-rule version of section 64.1200(f)(9) is reinstated nationally. (c28)
47 C.F.R. 64.501 (the historic federal recording-disclosure framework, including the legacy "beep tone" notice convention often referenced in older state-by-state recording guides) was REMOVED effective Nov. 20, 2017 by the FCC's Modernizing Common Carrier Rules order, 82 Fed. Reg. 48,766. Section 64.501 is NOT a live regulation. Older guides citing a "beep tone" rule under section 64.501 are obsolete. (c29)

A separate phantom-rule clarification is worth surfacing. Some third-party Wyoming summaries assert that the Wyoming Public Service Commission maintains a state-level call-recording or beep-tone disclosure rule. The Wyoming PSC does not. The PSC's role is limited to administering the federal Do-Not-Call Registry under TCPA and to general telecommunications service-quality oversight. No Wyoming-specific call-recording disclosure rule exists.

TAKE IT DOWN Act, Pub. L. 119-12

The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (S. 146, 119th Cong., Pub. L. 119-12) was signed by President Trump on May 19, 2025. Criminal provisions took effect on signing. Covered platforms must implement a 48-hour notice-and-removal procedure by May 19, 2026, which is five days from this refresh date (2026-05-14). The Act criminalizes the knowing publication of nonconsensual intimate visual depictions, including AI-generated digital forgeries (deepfakes), with penalties up to 2 years imprisonment plus fines for adult victims, or up to 3 years imprisonment plus fines where a minor is depicted. (c30)

For Wyoming, the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act fills two gaps. First, it provides federal-felony coverage for real-image NCII committed in Wyoming, where the state's section 6-4-306 remains a misdemeanor. Second, it imposes a federal 48-hour platform takedown obligation that takes effect BEFORE Wyoming's new section 6-4-307 synthetic-NCII felony (effective July 1, 2026). Wyoming victims of NCII or deepfake distribution can invoke the federal regime under Pub. L. 119-12 alongside section 6-4-306 (currently in force) and section 6-4-307 (effective July 1, 2026). The FTC's May 14, 2026 compliance reminder letters to more than a dozen major platforms (including Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, Automattic, Bumble, Discord, Match Group, Meta, Microsoft, Pinterest, Reddit, SmugMug, Snapchat, TikTok, and X) signal active federal compliance pressure.

HIPAA, CFPB Regulation F, and CALEA

Three other federal regimes complete the federal overlay for Wyoming. HIPAA at 45 C.F.R. Part 164 binds Wyoming healthcare providers, plans, and clearinghouses as covered entities; HIPAA constrains provider-side recording and disclosure of protected health information but does not preempt the Wyoming or federal one-party-consent rule for patient-side recording. CFPB Regulation F at 12 C.F.R. Part 1006 applies to debt collectors contacting Wyoming consumers; the underlying recording-consent rule is the state's one-party-consent default. CALEA at 47 U.S.C. 1001 to 1010 imposes capability requirements on Wyoming telecommunications carriers and broadband providers, but does not change the consent standard for individual recording.

Statutes of Limitations on Wyoming Recording Claims

Wyoming has two distinct limitations frameworks for recording claims, one for criminal prosecution and one for civil suits. Both differ markedly from the limitations posture in most other states.

Criminal: No General Statute of Limitations

Wyoming has NO general criminal statute of limitations. Felonies and misdemeanors may be prosecuted at any time after commission. Wyoming is one of only two U.S. states (the other is South Carolina) without a general criminal limitations statute. A felony interception under section 7-3-702(a), committed years or even decades before discovery, remains prosecutable. (c31)

A baseline error in older sources cited "Wyo. Stat. 6-1-107" as a Wyoming felony statute of limitations. Section 6-1-107 is NOT a general criminal limitations statute; it governs status-offense matters in the general provisions of Title 6 Chapter 1. Wyoming readers checking on stale recording incidents should treat the criminal clock as effectively open.

Civil: Section 1-3-105 Ambiguity, Defensive 1-Year Filing

The civil-side analysis is the section 7-3-710 ambiguity described in the dedicated H2 above. Section 1-3-105 has three potentially applicable subsections (8-year for liability created by statute, 4-year for injury to rights, 1-year for penalty or forfeiture statute), and Wyoming case law has not authoritatively resolved which applies to section 7-3-710 actions. The conservative practical recommendation is to file within ONE year of discovery to preserve all theories.

A separate common-law intrusion-on-seclusion claim arising from the same underlying recording is governed by the 4-year period in section 1-3-105(a)(iv)(C). A separate NCII civil claim under section 6-4-306 (currently in force as a misdemeanor with no express civil cause) or under section 6-4-307 (effective July 1, 2026 as a felony with no express civil cause) would proceed through general tort theories with the 4-year period likely controlling.

For practical purposes, the rule is: file the section 7-3-710 claim within one year of discovery to preserve all theories; preserve any supplemental common-law intrusion-on-seclusion claim independently; and treat any criminal-side complaint as effectively open without a limitations bar.

Specific Situations: Recording in Common Wyoming Scenarios

Wyoming's one-party-consent rule at section 7-3-702(b)(iv) governs the scenarios below. The voyeurism overlays at section 6-4-304 and the NCII overlays at sections 6-4-306 and 6-4-307 (effective July 1, 2026) add their own constraints where applicable.

Recording your landlord (lease disputes, repair conversations): Lawful for conversations you participate in. You cannot plant a device to record your landlord when you are not present.
Recording your doctor (medical appointments you attend): Lawful under section 7-3-702(b)(iv). HIPAA at 45 C.F.R. Part 164 binds the covered entity (the doctor and the clinic) on provider-side use and disclosure, not the patient's self-recording. Some clinics adopt internal no-recording policies; those are private policies, not state law.
Recording your ex-spouse or co-parent (custody disputes, family law): Lawful for conversations you participate in. Do not record your children's private conversations through the children, and do not use the children as a covert recording instrument. Recordings used for harassment or intimidation could be characterized as made for a "criminal or tortious act" and lose the consent defense.
Using a dashcam in your vehicle: Lawful. Audio capture is subject to the one-party-consent rule, with the driver as the consenting party for any in-vehicle conversation the driver participates in. Mount the device so it does not obstruct the driver's view of the road.
Recording at a Wyoming public meeting: Lawful. County commissions, city councils, school boards, and the Wyoming Legislature's committee proceedings are open meetings, and reasonable photographic and audio recording is permitted in the non-executive portions, subject to reasonable rules to avoid active interference.
Recording a Zoom or video conference call: Lawful for calls you are a party to. If any participant is in an all-party-consent state (notably Montana for Wyoming residents), comply with the stricter rule by announcing the recording at the start.
AI voice recorders, Plaud-style devices, smart-glasses cameras: Lawful for conversations you participate in. The device type does not change the section 7-3-702(b)(iv) analysis. Smart-glasses video capture is subject to section 6-4-304 in any private-place context.
Ring or Nest doorbell at your own front door: Lawful for audio of conversations with visitors at the front door (homeowner is a party under section 7-3-702(b)(iv)). Indoor placement in bathrooms, bedrooms, or dressing areas can trigger section 6-4-304 if the intent element matches.

For deeper walkthroughs, see [can an employer record conversations without consent](/can-an-employer-record-conversations-without-consent/) (NLRB Stericycle plus the GC 25-05 housekeeping correction plus GC 25-07 bargaining-session per se), can you record police officers on duty (national circuit-by-circuit framework, including the Tenth Circuit Frasier-then-Irizarry progression), is it illegal to video record someone without their consent (Wyoming voyeurism at section 6-4-304 and NCII at section 6-4-306 plus the forthcoming section 6-4-307 synthetic-NCII felony), and the DMCA takedown notice generator (NCII and TAKE IT DOWN Act notice-and-removal). For the parent hub and counter-list, see United States recording laws, one-party consent states, and all-party consent states.

Wyoming Recording Laws by Topic

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

Wyoming Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Guide
Wyoming Dashcam Laws: Legality, Mounting, and Evidence Rules
Wyoming Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Rights and Rules
Wyoming Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and HIPAA Guide
Wyoming Phone Call Recording Laws: Rules and Consent Guide
[Wyoming Laws on Recording Police: Your Rights and Limits](/united-states-recording-laws/one-party-consent-states/wyoming-recording-laws/police/)
Wyoming Laws on Recording in Public: What You Can and Cannot Do
Wyoming School Recording Laws: Security, Parents, and Students
Wyoming Security Camera Laws: Rules for Homes and Businesses
Wyoming Video Recording Laws: Privacy Rules and Consent
Wyoming Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Cameras and Privacy Violations
Wyoming Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights

Frequently Asked Questions About Wyoming Recording Laws

More Wyoming Laws

Disclaimer

This article presents general legal information about recording laws in Wyoming. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Recording laws are jurisdiction-specific, fact-specific, and subject to legislative amendment and judicial reinterpretation. The information here was verified on May 14, 2026, against the Wyoming Statutes Annotated, the Wyoming Supreme Court opinion archive, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the United States Code, the Code of Federal Regulations, National Labor Relations Board guidance, and Federal Communications Commission orders. For advice on a specific situation, consult a lawyer licensed in Wyoming.

Sources and References

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

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

Wyo. Stat. 7-3-702: The Wyoming Wiretap Statute

Section 7-3-702(f): Felony Tier and Reduced Misdemeanor Tier

Sections 7-3-701, 7-3-703, 7-3-704, and 7-3-711