Recording Law for Employers & Businesses in Utah

Utah lets you record any conversation you’re part of without telling the other person. That’s the state’s one-party consent rule, spelled out in Utah Code § 77-23a-4(7)(b): “A person not acting under color of law may intercept a wire, electronic, or oral communication if that person is a party to the communication or one 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.” In other words, if you’re talking to someone, you can record that talk without their knowledge or permission. This rule applies whether the conversation is in person, over the phone, or through another electronic channel. The key is your involvement in the conversation: if you’re part of it, you’re the “one party” whose consent satisfies the law. Just don’t use the recording to break the law or harm someone—that would turn a legal recording into an illegal act.

For businesses using smartglasses or other devices to record employee-customer interactions, Utah’s one-party consent law generally allows it only when the employee is an active participant in the specific conversation with the customer. The Utah statute does not distinguish between in-person chats, phone calls, or electronic messages—it covers all three under the same rule. The employee wearing the smartglasses is the “one party” whose participation in that conversation makes the recording lawful. Just make sure the recording isn’t used for criminal or tortious purposes, or you risk liability under the same statute. Also keep in mind that separate privacy rules can apply in private spaces, which we cover next. Utah Code § 77-23a-4(7)(b) applies a single one-party-consent rule to 'a wire, electronic, or oral communication'—i.e., in-person conversations, phone calls, and electronic communications are all treated identically: a participant (or someone with one participant's prior consent) may lawfully record, unless the recording is done to commit a criminal or tortious act. The statute’s one-party consent rule applies regardless of location or publicness, so the employee’s involvement in the conversation is the critical factor.

Utah’s wiretap law only regulates audio or the content of communications, so silent video recording isn’t covered by the one-party consent rule. But a different law, Utah Code § 76-12-302, makes it a Class B misdemeanor to install or use a device to observe, photograph, hear, record, amplify, or broadcast sounds or events in a “private place” without consent. A “private place” is defined as somewhere a person may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance. That means recording video inside a customer’s home, a private office, or a staff break room could violate this law if the device is used to capture what occurs there without the consent of the person entitled to privacy there. The same law applies even if no audio is captured. Outside those private spaces—like a retail floor, sidewalk, or public park—silent video recording is generally allowed without consent under Utah law. Utah Code § 76-12-302 covers 'observing, photographing, hearing, recording...' triggered by video or photography alone, not just audio, and applies to recordings 'with or without audio.'

Utah has a specific law protecting people who record on-duty police officers performing official duties in plain view. Utah Code § 76-8-305(4) states: “Recording the actions of a peace officer with a camera, mobile phone, or other photographic device, while the peace officer is performing official duties in plain view, does not by itself constitute: (a) interference with the peace officer; (b) willful resistance; (c) disorderly conduct; or (d) obstruction of justice.” This gives you a clear legal safe harbor for recording police in public. On top of that, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit—whose rulings cover Utah—has held that the First Amendment protects the right to record police officers performing their official duties in public. That right was “clearly established” as of 2022 in Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022). Just don’t physically interfere with the officer’s work or ignore lawful orders to step back.

Recording someone without their consent in a way that violates Utah’s wiretap law can lead to serious consequences. Under Utah Code § 77-23a-4, unlawfully intercepting a communication is a third-degree felony, though certain radio-communication violations are downgraded to class A or class B misdemeanors depending on the circumstances. There’s also a private right of action: anyone whose communication was illegally intercepted can sue for damages, including statutory and punitive damages. Separately, violating the private-place recording law (Utah Code § 76-12-302) is a Class B misdemeanor. The Utah Consumer Privacy Act adds another layer for businesses that process biometric data like voiceprints, but it only applies to companies meeting certain size and revenue thresholds and requires notice and an opt-out before processing sensitive data. Under the Utah Consumer Privacy Act, if a company meets the $25M revenue threshold and either processes at least 100,000 Utah consumers annually or derives more than 50% of gross revenue from data sales and processes at least 25,000 consumers, it must provide clear notice and an opportunity to opt out before processing sensitive data such as voiceprints used to identify a specific individual. Violations are enforced by the Attorney General, who must provide a 30-day cure period before initiating an action, and civil penalties may not exceed $7,500 per violation plus actual damages.

Utah lawyers face additional ethical constraints when recording conversations. The Utah State Bar Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee has held that recording conversations to which an attorney is a party without prior disclosure to the other parties is not unethical when the act does not involve dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Opinion No. 96-04 (approved July 3, 1996), interpreting Utah RPC 8.4(c) and reaffirmed as still controlling by Ethics Opinion 22-06 (Nov. 8, 2022), states that undisclosed recording by a lawyer is not per se unethical, subject to caveats such as no independent dishonesty or misrepresentation of identity or purpose. The opinion explicitly rejects ABA Formal Opinion 337 as unpersuasive in light of Utah’s one-party-consent statute. Lawyers must be cautious not to lie when asked if they are recording, as that could constitute dishonesty under the ethics rules.

Imagine a retail employee wearing smartglasses that record audio and video of customer interactions. The employee is helping a customer on the sales floor when a dispute arises. Because the employee is part of the conversation, the recording is lawful under Utah’s one-party consent rule. If the customer later claims the recording was illegal, the store can point to the employee’s involvement as the required consent. The smartglasses also capture silent video of the exchange. Since the sales floor is a public space, the video recording is allowed under Utah law. If the same dispute happened inside the customer’s private home during a delivery, using the smartglasses to record video inside that private space could violate the private-place law unless the customer consented. The store should train employees on where recording is allowed and get consent before recording in private spaces. Utah Code § 76-12-302 independently criminalizes installing or using a device to observe, photograph, hear, record, amplify, or broadcast sounds or events in a 'private place' without consent, and applies to recordings 'with or without audio.'

Utah’s laws draw important distinctions between types of communications and locations. An 'oral communication' under Utah Code § 77-23a-3 is defined as any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying that expectation. This means loud or public exchanges may not qualify as protected 'oral communications' at all. Separately, a 'private place' under Utah Code § 76-12-301(2) is defined as a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance. This definition excludes ordinary public places like streets, sidewalks, stores, or public encounters with police. The 'private place' definition is critical for the separate privacy-violation statute (§ 76-12-302), which bars covert recording in such locations regardless of whether audio is captured. Utah’s Interception of Communications Act does not contain an express 'public place' carve-out because it doesn’t need one for a wearable-device user who is a participant in the interaction being recorded—one-party consent under § 77-23a-4(7)(b) covers that regardless of location or publicness.