Recording Law for Employers & Businesses in Colorado

Colorado lets you record any conversation you’re part of without telling the other person first. That’s called one-party consent. If an employee wears smartglasses that capture audio or video of a customer interaction, the recording is legal under Colorado’s wiretapping and eavesdropping laws as long as the employee is part of the conversation. Colorado’s wiretapping statute (§ 18-9-303) criminalizes a person who is not a sender or intended receiver knowingly overhearing or recording a telephone, telegraph, or electronic communication without the consent of either a sender or a receiver. The eavesdropping statute (§ 18-9-304) criminalizes a person who is not visibly present during an in-person conversation or discussion knowingly overhearing or recording it without the consent of at least one principal party. The statutes are supported by definitions in § 18-9-301 and exceptions in § 18-9-305. Video-only recording without audio is not restricted by these laws. Neither statute covers silent, audio-free video capture of a scene by a body-worn camera because the wiretapping statute’s definition of 'electronic communication' requires a transfer transmitted by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, and the eavesdropping statute applies only to a 'conversation or discussion'—an oral/spoken exchange—requiring the person to have overheard or recorded it. Under this framework, silent video is not treated as a 'conversation or discussion,' so it falls outside the eavesdropping statute. For example, a retail employee wearing smartglasses that only capture video of a store aisle isn’t breaking the law, even if customers are unaware.

Starting July 1, 2025, Colorado adds new restrictions for voiceprints—recordings of someone’s voice used to identify them. Under the new biometric privacy law (H.B. 24-1130, codified at Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 6-1-1303(2.2)/(2.4) and 6-1-1314), employers must get consent before collecting a voiceprint from an employee or customer. The law defines a voiceprint as a 'biometric identifier' under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1303(2.4)(b), and it requires the controller to inform the consumer that a biometric identifier is being collected, the specific purpose for which it will be collected and the length of time it will be retained, and whether it will be disclosed to a processor, as set out in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1314(4)(a). Employers also can’t sell or disclose the voiceprint without consent, as prohibited by Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1314(4)(b)-(c). This matters for smartglasses that use voice authentication or identification. A plain audio recording isn’t covered unless it’s used for identification purposes; the carve-out in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-1303(2.2)(b)(II) excludes a bare audio/voice recording from the definition of 'biometric data' unless used for identification. For example, a warehouse using smartglasses to log workers by voice would need consent under this new rule.

Colorado courts say conversations in open public spaces—like sidewalks, streets, or store aisles—carry no reasonable expectation of privacy. That means recording them is allowed even without telling anyone. The key case is People v. Lesslie, 939 P.2d 443 (Colo. App. 1996), which held that a conversation is only protected if someone subjectively believed it wasn’t being recorded and that belief was objectively reasonable under the framework imported from § 18-9-301(8)’s definition of 'oral communication.' Loud arguments on a public sidewalk don’t meet that test. So, a retail employee wearing smartglasses to record customer service interactions in a store isn’t breaking the law, even if customers aren’t told. The only exception is if the conversation happens in a place where people expect privacy, like a restroom or private office.

Colorado law and federal courts protect your right to record police officers performing their duties in public. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022) that filming police is protected by the First Amendment. Colorado also has a specific statute (§ 16-3-311) that says you have the right to record peace officer interactions and keep control of the recording. Police can’t seize your device or delete your footage without a warrant, subpoena, or your consent, except in limited emergencies where an exigent-circumstance seizure is allowed for up to 72 hours pending a warrant, as set out in § 16-3-311. If they do, you can sue under § 13-21-128 for damages—$500 if the recording is destroyed, and up to $15,000 in punitive damages, as provided in § 13-21-128. For example, if a customer records a police interaction outside your store and an officer tries to delete the footage, the customer can sue for interference with their recording rights.

Colorado doesn’t require employers to post signs or give notice when recording conversations they’re part of, but it’s a smart business practice. The only law about notice is § 18-9-305(1), which allows wiretapping/eavesdropping devices to be used on owned premises for security or business purposes if reasonable notice of the use of such devices is given to the public, and also exempts news agencies using accepted tools to report newsworthy events. That notice could be a sign saying 'This area is under video and audio surveillance.' This doesn’t cover personal recordings or recordings outside your property. For smartglasses used by employees, posting a policy and training staff is the best way to avoid disputes. For example, a restaurant could post a sign at the entrance saying staff may record interactions for training and safety, which covers most uses of smartglasses.

Imagine a retail store where employees wear smartglasses that capture video and audio of customer service interactions. The store posts a sign at the entrance saying, 'For your safety and service quality, this location uses audio and video recording.' An employee helps a customer, and the glasses record the conversation. Under Colorado law, this is legal because the employee is part of the conversation (one-party consent). The video-only part is not restricted by the wiretapping or eavesdropping statutes. Starting July 1, 2025, if the glasses use voiceprints to identify employees, the store must get consent under the new biometric privacy law, inform the consumer of the specific purpose and retention period, and adopt a written retention/deletion policy. If a customer records a dispute with an employee outside the store on a public sidewalk, both state law and federal courts protect that recording. The store can’t stop the customer from recording or seize their device.

Colorado’s eavesdropping statute (§ 18-9-304) applies to in-person conversations or discussions where the recorder is not visibly present, but it also incorporates a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test from § 18-9-301(8) for what counts as a protected 'conversation or discussion.' Break rooms, private offices, and similar enclosed spaces typically carry an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, so recording there without consent can violate the statute even if the recorder is a participant. The leading case, People v. Lesslie, 939 P.2d 443 (Colo. App. 1996), involved a hidden listening device in a bar restroom where occupants had an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy. Employers should avoid recording in areas where employees or visitors expect privacy unless all parties consent. The wiretapping statute (§ 18-9-303) does not contain a privacy gate and applies one-party consent mechanically to telephone, telegraph, or electronic communications, but it does not authorize recording in private areas where participants reasonably expect confidentiality.

Recording someone without consent in Colorado can lead to criminal penalties and civil liability. Both the wiretapping statute (§ 18-9-303) and the eavesdropping statute (§ 18-9-304) are class 2 misdemeanors, punishable by up to 120 days in jail and a fine of up to $750 under Colorado’s post-2022 misdemeanor sentencing scheme. Separately, Colorado allows civil lawsuits for invasion of privacy and interference with recordings. Under § 13-21-128, a person can sue a law-enforcement officer for destroying or unlawfully seizing a recording, with damages of $500 for a destroyed recording and up to $15,000 in punitive damages. Employers who violate the new biometric privacy law (effective July 1, 2025) face enforcement by the Attorney General or district attorneys, including injunctions and civil penalties, but there is no private right of action under the statute itself.