Recording Law for Recording at Home in Vermont

Vermont does not have its own law requiring consent to record conversations. Because of that, the federal Wiretap Act’s one-party consent rule applies by default — but only after a conversation clears the federal Wiretap Act’s threshold test for a protected "oral communication." Under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), any person taking part in a conversation may lawfully record it without telling the others, as long as the recording isn’t done for a criminal or tortious purpose. This rule covers both phone calls and in-person talks, provided the speaker exhibited an expectation of privacy that the circumstances objectively justified under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2). There is no separate Vermont statute that adds stricter consent requirements for private citizens recording conversations in their own home or elsewhere.

Vermont’s voyeurism statute, 13 V.S.A. § 2605(d), makes it a crime to intentionally conduct surveillance or to photograph, film, or record in any format a person without that person’s knowledge and consent while that person is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy within a home or residence. The law reaches any recording format, including audio-only devices placed covertly inside a home. A first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by up to two years imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine. A second or later offense is a felony with up to three years imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine. A separate subsection (13 V.S.A. § 2605(c)) criminalizes the disclosure of illegally recorded material and carries up to five years imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine. Importantly, the law requires the person being recorded to have knowledge of and consent to the recording at the time it happens — consent given later does not fix an earlier unlawful recording.

Consent must exist when the recording starts. Simply seeing a visible camera on someone’s glasses or phone does not by itself prove the person being recorded knows the device is actively capturing audio or video, or that they agree to it. The statute requires both knowledge that the device is actively recording and consent to be present at the time of recording. A later statement like “I knew you were recording” does not make earlier footage lawful. The law does not define how consent must be shown, so the safest practice is to have an explicit, affirmative acknowledgment captured on the recording itself before starting to record inside someone else’s home.

The voyeurism law targets recordings made without consent inside a home where privacy is expected. If you are recording your own conversations or activities inside your own home, the statute does not restrict you from doing so. The restriction applies when you record others inside their home without their knowledge and consent. If you invite someone into your home and they later claim they did not know they were being recorded, the same consent rules apply to that conversation.

Imagine you visit a friend’s apartment to discuss a shared bill. You wear a small camera on your shirt to capture the discussion in case there’s a disagreement later. Your friend does not ask whether you are recording, and you do not tell them. Under Vermont’s voyeurism law, this recording is likely unlawful because your friend did not have knowledge that the device was actively recording or consent to the recording at the time it happened. Even if your friend later says they didn’t mind being recorded, that does not fix the earlier violation. If you want to record inside someone else’s home, you should tell them before starting and capture their agreement on the recording that the device is actively capturing audio or video.

In public places, the federal one-party consent rule generally allows you to record your own conversations, including with police officers performing public duties, as long as you are part of the conversation and the conversation qualifies as a protected "oral communication" under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2). Vermont’s voyeurism law does not apply to ordinary public behavior because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. However, if an officer on scene orders you to stop recording or states the recording is unlawful, pausing audio capture is the safer choice until you can have the footage reviewed by a lawyer. Vermont courts have not clearly decided whether you have a First Amendment right to continue recording against an officer’s direct order.

Spaces that are neither fully public nor fully private — such as the lobby of an apartment building, a hotel hallway, or a retail store’s stockroom — can present harder questions under Vermont’s voyeurism statute. The statute’s in-home provision applies only where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy within a home or residence, so it does not automatically cover every semi-public space. However, the statute’s definitions of "intimate areas" and "reasonable expectation of privacy" are broad enough that covert recording in such spaces could still raise legal risk. The safest practice is to avoid covert recording in any space where a person could reasonably expect privacy, even if the space is not a traditional home.