Recording Law for Employers & Businesses in Idaho

Idaho lets you record any conversation you are part of without telling the other person. The state’s wiretap law, Idaho Code § 18-6702, says it is legal to intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication when one party to the communication has given prior consent. Because you are part of the conversation, your consent is enough. This rule applies equally to in-person talks, phone calls, and electronic messages like text chats or emails. The law does not require you to inform the other person or get their okay before you start recording. Idaho Code § 18-6702 was added in 1980, amended in 2002, and again in 2004; the 2004 amendment is the last substantive change to the statute.

The wiretap statute defines three kinds of communications: wire (phone calls), electronic (texts, chats, emails), and oral (face-to-face speech). For face-to-face speech, the law imposes a two-part test: the speaker must have shown an expectation that the words would not be overheard, and the situation must justify that expectation. This is a statutory gate built into Idaho Code § 18-6701(2), which defines "oral communication" as "any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation." In practice, a loud argument in a crowded store aisle is less likely to qualify as a protected “oral communication” than a quiet chat in a private office. Even so, one-party consent still lets you record, because you are a party to the exchange. This expectation-based gate applies only to “oral communication”; the definitions of “wire communication” and “electronic communication” contain no comparable reasonable-expectation qualifier.

Federal courts covering Idaho recognize a First Amendment right to photograph or record on-duty police officers performing official duties in public places. That right exists alongside Idaho’s one-party consent rule, which allows any party to a conversation to lawfully record it. In plain terms, you can record an officer during a traffic stop, protest, or similar public encounter as long as you do not interfere with the officer’s work. Keep a visible distance, do not block movement or access, and follow any direct order to stop recording or move back. If you cross those lines, a court could later decide the recording was not protected. Ninth Circuit precedent confirms this right: Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995) and Askins v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018) both recognize a First Amendment right to record matters of public interest, including law enforcement performing official duties in public places.

Idaho’s wiretap law focuses on intercepting “aural” (sound) transfers. A camera that captures only images—no audio—does not fall under the statute’s ban on intercepting communications because the operative terms of Idaho Code § 18-6702 are anchored to an "aural transfer" or an "oral communication uttered by a person." That means you can use smartglasses to record video of a customer dispute or workplace incident without asking for audio consent, as long as you do not also capture the conversation’s soundtrack. The same logic applies to dashcams, bodycams, or any other device that records pictures without sound. The statute’s definitions of “wire communication” and “electronic communication” expressly exclude silent visual observation or recording that is not transmitted to another point.

Imagine you run a retail store and an employee wearing company-issued smartglasses films a customer who becomes aggressive after a price check. The employee is part of the conversation, so Idaho’s one-party consent rule allows the recording even if the customer never knows. The glasses capture both video and audio, which is fine under § 18-6702 because the employee is a party to the exchange. If the dispute happens in the store’s public aisle, the loud volume and open setting mean there is no justified expectation of privacy, so the recording is clearly lawful. The footage can later be used for training or liability protection. Because the employee is a party to the encounter, the recording is authorized regardless of whether the exchange qualifies as an “oral communication” under § 18-6701(2).

Breaking Idaho’s wiretap law is a felony that can bring up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even if criminal charges are rare, a person you record can sue you in civil court under Idaho Code § 18-6709. That statute allows liquidated damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. A customer or employee could also claim invasion of privacy or other torts, especially if the recording happens in a sensitive area like a restroom or break room. Smartglasses policies should spell out where and how staff may record to reduce these risks.

Idaho’s one-party consent rule applies uniformly regardless of where the recording takes place; there is no heightened rule or relaxed rule specific to one’s own home. The statute does not create a location-based carve-out, so recording in a private residence is treated the same as recording in a public space. Separately, Idaho has a video-voyeurism statute, Idaho Code § 18-6609, aimed at surreptitious recording of nudity or intimate activity in places like bathrooms and bedrooms; this statute is not implicated by ordinary recording of disputes or police interactions.