Recording Law for Video-Only Recording in Utah

Utah’s wiretap law (Utah Code § 77-23a-4) only restricts recording the content of conversations — meaning the actual words spoken in a wire, electronic, or oral communication. It does not restrict recording video without audio at all, because the law only covers 'wire, electronic, or oral communication[s]' — i.e., audio/content of communications. The law says you can record a conversation if you are part of it, or if someone in the conversation has agreed to the recording, as long as you’re not using the recording to commit a crime or a tort. This one‑party consent rule applies to covered communications regardless of whether the communication is in person, by phone, or electronic. For in‑person conversations, however, the law first requires that the utterance qualify as a protected 'oral communication' under Utah Code § 77-23a-3(13): a person must exhibit an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances objectively justifying that expectation. Once that threshold is met, the one‑party consent rule applies. So, for example, filming a street scene, a public protest, or a store display with your phone’s camera is not restricted by the wiretap law, because those recordings do not capture the content of any conversation. But if you record an in‑person conversation in a way that captures its spoken content, the wiretap law’s consent rule applies to that audio portion.

Even though Utah’s wiretap law does not restrict silent video recording, another law can. 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 the consent of the person entitled to privacy there. A 'private place' is defined in Utah Code § 76-12-301(2) as 'a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance' — such as someone’s home, a restroom, or a changing room. So, secretly recording video inside someone’s house, a hotel room, or a locker room without permission can break this law — even if you don’t record any audio. The law applies to video alone, not just audio, but only when the recording occurs into or within a private place. Recording in a public place like a street, park, or store is generally allowed, because those are not 'private places.'

Utah has a law that protects your right to record on-duty police officers with a camera or phone, as long as you are not interfering with their work. Utah Code § 76-8-305(4) provides: '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 means filming a police officer doing their job in public — like during a traffic stop or a protest — is legal by itself, subject to the caveat that you must not physically interfere with the officer’s lawful duties or disobey a lawful order to move back. Federal courts in Utah have also ruled that the First Amendment protects the right to record police officers performing their official duties in public. In Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022), the Tenth Circuit held that this right was clearly established and denied the defendant officer qualified immunity, joining several other federal circuits in recognizing this right.

If you’re recording video inside your own home, the rules are different depending on who you’re recording. The wiretap law’s one‑party consent rule applies uniformly regardless of location, so a person recording their own conversations or interactions inside their own home is covered the same way as anywhere else. However, a separate statute — 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 the consent of the person entitled to privacy there. A home qualifies as a 'private place,' which raises a location‑specific issue distinct from the wiretap act: that statute bars covert recording in a private place, even silent video, without the consent of the person entitled to privacy there. Utah statutory text does not explicitly resolve how this applies when a homeowner secretly records a guest or other third party inside the home without that third party’s knowledge, and no Utah appellate case law was found construing this specific scenario. Therefore, the safest approach is to get consent or avoid recording others without their knowledge in your home.

Breaking Utah’s wiretap law is generally a third‑degree felony, but certain radio‑communication violations are downgraded to class A or class B misdemeanors under Utah Code § 77-23a-4(10)(a). Recording someone without consent in a private place under Utah Code § 76-12-302 is a Class B misdemeanor. This means you could face fines and, in some cases, jail time. The law also allows people who were recorded without consent to sue for damages under Utah Code § 77-23a-11. It’s important to know the setting — public vs. private — and whether you’re part of the conversation before recording, because the wiretap law’s one‑party consent rule applies only to covered communications, and the separate privacy‑violation statute applies to recordings in private places.

Imagine you’re at a public protest and use your phone to record video of police officers interacting with protesters. The officers are in plain view, doing their jobs. Under Utah law, this is protected: you’re filming in a public place, and the law specifically says recording police officers in plain view does not by itself constitute interference or obstruction, provided you do not physically interfere with the officer’s duties. Now imagine you’re at a private party in someone’s home and secretly record video of guests talking without their knowledge. Even if you don’t record audio, you could be breaking the law that prohibits recording in a private place without consent. The homeowner’s consent may not cover the guests, and the law is unclear on whether it does; this scenario should be treated as medium/low confidence and flagged for attorney review if it becomes case-relevant. The safer choice is to ask for consent or avoid recording others without their knowledge.

Utah’s separate privacy‑violation statute (§ 76-12-302) defines a 'private place' in Utah Code § 76-12-301(2) as 'a place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from casual or hostile intrusion or surveillance.' This includes homes, hotel rooms, and restrooms, but it excludes ordinary public places like streets, sidewalks, stores, and public encounters with police. The definition is objective: it turns on what a reasonable person would expect in the circumstances, not on whether the space is technically 'private' in a property sense. So, for example, a backyard that is shielded from public view by a fence may still be a 'private place' if a reasonable person would expect privacy there, while a crowded public sidewalk is not, even if the conversation is hushed.

Even in a public place, a conversation may carry a reasonable expectation of privacy if the speaker exhibits an expectation it would not be intercepted, under circumstances objectively justifying that expectation. Utah’s 'oral communication' definition (§ 77-23a-3(13)) includes this two‑part test: subjective expectation plus objective justification. No Utah appellate case law squarely construes this test in the recording‑consent context, so the case‑law layer is rated medium confidence. Practically, this means that if you record an in‑person conversation in public where the speaker is using a lowered voice, physically separating from bystanders, or expressly requesting privacy, the safer approach is to treat that segment as still protected and obtain consent, because the statute’s reasonable‑expectation‑of‑privacy element may apply even in a public setting.