Recording Law for Family Law in Utah

Utah lets you record any conversation you’re part of without telling the other person. The law says you can intercept a phone call, in-person chat, or electronic message if you are one of the people talking, or if one of the people talking has agreed to the recording. The key exception is if the recording is made to commit a crime or a tort, like blackmail or defamation. This rule comes from Utah Code § 77-23a-4(7)(b), which states: “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 violation of state or federal laws.”

Not every conversation is protected under Utah’s wiretap law. For in-person chats, the law only covers what the statute calls an “oral communication.” That term means a spoken statement where the speaker has a reasonable expectation the words won’t be overheard or recorded. Utah Code § 77-23a-3 defines an oral communication as “any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying that expectation.” If someone is shouting in a crowded room or speaking to a crowd, a court would likely say there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy. But if two people step aside and lower their voices, that could qualify. Phone calls and electronic messages are covered by the law regardless of whether the speaker expected privacy; unlike oral communications, they do not include a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy element in their definitions.

Utah has a clear rule for recording police officers performing their official duties in public. State law says recording an officer with a camera or phone does not, by itself, count as interference, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, or obstruction of justice. 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.” The Tenth Circuit, which covers Utah, has also ruled that the First Amendment protects the right to record police officers performing their duties in public. Still, you must follow any lawful order to move back or stay outside a secured area to avoid separate charges.

Recording video without sound is treated differently from audio recording. Utah’s wiretap law only covers the interception of “wire, electronic, or oral communication[s],” which means audio content. Silent video is not covered by that law. However, a separate Utah statute, § 76-12-302, makes it a crime to use a device to observe or photograph someone 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. Utah statutory text does not explicitly resolve how a homeowner’s consent to record in their own home applies when secretly recording a guest or other third party inside the home without that third party’s knowledge; this nuance should be treated as medium/low confidence and flagged for attorney review if it becomes case-relevant. In public, silent video recording is generally allowed.

Imagine you and your ex are exchanging your child at a picnic table in a public park. You pull out your phone and start recording the conversation without telling your ex. Under Utah’s one-party consent rule, this is legal because you are part of the conversation. The law does not require you to tell the other person you’re recording. If your ex lowers their voice and says, “Can we talk privately?” and you keep recording, the one-party consent rule still applies regardless of location. The recording would still be allowed under that rule.

Breaking Utah’s recording laws can lead to both criminal and civil penalties. Illegally intercepting a wire, electronic, or oral communication is a third-degree felony under Utah Code § 77-23a-4(10)(a). You could also face a civil lawsuit for damages, with the court able to award actual damages and attorney fees. Separately, secretly recording someone in a private place can lead to a Class B misdemeanor charge under § 76-12-302. These penalties apply regardless of whether the recording was made for a family law case.

Utah’s Interception of Communications Act provides a private right of action for anyone whose communications are unlawfully intercepted. Under Utah Code § 77-23a-11, a person whose wire, electronic, or oral communication is intercepted in violation of the Act may sue for damages, including actual damages and reasonable attorney fees. This remedy runs alongside any criminal penalties and is available even if the interception did not result in criminal charges.

Utah’s one-party consent rule applies to workplace conversations in which the recording party participates, but employers may impose their own recording policies that restrict or prohibit workplace recordings. These policies do not override the statutory consent rule, but violating an employer’s policy can lead to disciplinary action, including termination. This area remains unsettled in Utah case law, so consult an attorney if workplace recording is necessary.

Utah’s one-party consent rule applies to conversations involving minors when the recording party is a participant. However, parents or guardians recording a minor’s conversations with others may raise additional privacy and consent issues depending on the context. Utah’s separate privacy-violation statute (§ 76-12-302) criminalizes using a device to observe or photograph someone in a private place without consent, which could apply in some family-law contexts. Because no Utah appellate case law squarely addresses recording minors under these statutes, this area should be treated as medium/low confidence and reviewed by an attorney before proceeding.

Utah’s one-party consent rule applies uniformly, but two nuanced exceptions exist. First, the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy element in Utah Code § 77-23a-3 means that even in public, a conversation may be protected if the speakers exhibit a subjective expectation of privacy and the circumstances objectively justify it. Second, Utah’s privacy-violation statute (§ 76-12-302) independently bars covert recording in a private place, regardless of consent, and defines a private place as somewhere a person may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance. These nuances mean that while you can generally record conversations you’re part of, you should avoid recording in private spaces or in settings where speakers may have a reasonable expectation of privacy.