Recording Law for Voiceprints & Biometric Data in Arizona

Arizona does not have a state law that requires businesses to get consent before collecting or storing a person’s voiceprint as biometric data. Unlike Illinois’ BIPA or Texas’ CUBI, Arizona has no statute that singles out biometric identifiers like voiceprints for special notice-and-consent rules. The only Arizona law that even mentions “biometric information” is A.R.S. § 15-109, which applies only to K–12 school districts and requires parental written consent before a school collects a pupil’s biometric data. That law does not cover private companies or adult consumers. In February 2026, a bill (SB 1717) was introduced that would have required notice and consent for commercial capture of biometric identifiers including voiceprints, but the legislature adjourned sine die on June 13, 2026 without passing it. As of today, no such requirement exists under Arizona law.

Arizona’s wiretap statute, A.R.S. § 13-3005 (Interception of wire, electronic and oral communications; installation of pen register or trap and trace device; classification; exceptions), makes it a felony to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication without consent. The law defines “intercept” as “aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication.” The key consent rule is in A.R.S. § 13-3012(9), which says an interception is lawful if made “with the consent of a party to the communication or a person who is present during the communication.” That means Arizona is a one‑party consent state: if you are part of the conversation, you can record it without telling the other person. The statute itself does not single out phone calls versus in‑person talks; the same one‑party rule applies to both. The law also does not create a separate rule for recording inside someone’s home versus a public place.

Arizona’s definition of “oral communication” in A.R.S. § 13-3001(8) adds an extra gate: it protects only spoken words “uttered by a person who exhibits an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying the expectation.” In plain terms, if a speaker has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the exchange, the exchange is not a protected “oral communication” and no consent is required. Courts look at the totality of the circumstances: volume, proximity to others, body language, and whether anyone asked to keep the exchange private. For example, a loud argument in a crowded plaza where speakers use normal-to-loud voices without evident effort to lower or muffle them, and show no signs of trying to keep the exchange private, is less likely to be treated as a protected “oral communication” than a hushed conversation in a quiet corner where participants lean in or use privacy-seeking body language. The statute does not create a bright‑line rule based solely on whether the place is “public” or “private.” This expectation-of-privacy test was applied in State v. Hauss, 142 Ariz. 159, 688 P.2d 1051 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984) (also cited as Arizona v. Hauss, 142 Ariz. 159).

Arizona’s wiretap chapter only restricts the “aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication.” Silent video recording—without capturing any audio or other aural content—does not fall within that definition. The law treats video separately, mainly under A.R.S. § 13-3019, which targets surreptitious or hidden recording of nudity or sexual activity in places like restrooms or bedrooms. Openly recording a public dispute or police interaction with a camera that does not pick up sound or other aural content is not treated as an “interception” under the wiretap statute. In short, if your device is only recording images or video without audio, Arizona’s wiretap law does not apply.

Imagine you are at a public park festival and two people start arguing loudly in the middle of the crowd. You turn on your phone’s video camera and record the exchange without telling them. Because the speakers are using normal-to-loud voices in a crowded, open space and show no signs of trying to keep the exchange private, Arizona courts would likely treat this as a situation where the speakers had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Under A.R.S. § 13-3001(8), the exchange would not qualify as a protected “oral communication,” so the one‑party consent rule in A.R.S. § 13-3012(9) is not even triggered. You did not intercept a protected communication, and you did not violate Arizona’s wiretap law. This is a general explanation only; outcomes can change with different facts.

Arizona enacted a law (HB2319) in 2022 that made it a crime to video record on‑duty police within eight feet after a warning to stop, but a federal court blocked that law as unconstitutional in September 2022 and the Arizona Attorney General agreed to a permanent injunction in July 2023 in Arizona Broadcasters Ass'n v. Brnovich. The injunction means HB2319 cannot be enforced. Beyond that, Arizona follows the Ninth Circuit’s rule that there is a First Amendment right to record police performing official duties in public, subject to reasonable time‑place‑manner restrictions. For audio recording, the same one‑party consent rule applies: if you are present, your consent satisfies the law, whether you are recording a civilian or a police officer. The Ninth Circuit precedents supporting this rule include Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995), and Askins v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018).

Arizona’s ethics rules historically treated undisclosed recording by lawyers as inherently deceptive under Arizona ER 8.4(c), with limited exceptions for criminal defense work and client advice. Formal Ethics Opinions 95-03 (Feb. 1995), 90-02 (Mar. 16, 1990), 75-13 (June 11, 1975), and 00-04 (Nov. 2000) set out these carve-outs: Opinion 90-02 permits recording witness conversations by criminal defense attorneys or their agents with one-party consent to protect against perjury or obtain impeachment material; Opinion 75-13 lists exceptions for crime-related utterances, perjury protection, informant self-protection, and court-authorized recordings; Opinion 00-04 allows a lawyer to advise a client to record if the recording is legal; and Opinion 95-03 deemed recording opposing counsel without disclosure inherently deceptive. In 2020–21, the Attorney Ethics Advisory Committee drafted Ethics Opinion File No. EO-20-0002 to expressly overrule Opinion 95-03 and adopt ABA Formal Opinion 01-422’s view that undisclosed recording is not per se unethical if lawful, but the Arizona Supreme Court rejected that proposal on April 13, 2021 in Arizona Broadcasters Ass'n v. Brnovich and directed it not be posted or distributed. As a result, Arizona’s pre-2021 framework remains the operative guidance: undisclosed recording of opposing counsel is treated as inherently deceptive, while other contexts (e.g., criminal defense investigative recording, client advice to record) remain subject to the earlier carve-outs.