Recording Law for Voiceprints & Biometric Data in Vermont

Vermont has no state law that requires you to get everyone’s permission before recording a conversation. Because of that, the federal Wiretap Act’s one-party consent rule applies by default. That means any party to a conversation can record it without telling the others, unless done for a criminal or tortious purpose. The federal law defines a protected “oral communication” as one where the speaker has a reasonable expectation the conversation won’t be intercepted and the circumstances justify that expectation. If the speaker is in a public place or takes no steps to keep the conversation private, the federal law generally allows recording. Vermont itself doesn’t add any extra consent rules on top of this federal baseline, except for the narrow voyeurism statute discussed below.

The federal Wiretap Act says a protected “oral communication” exists only if the speaker shows an expectation that the conversation won’t be intercepted and the circumstances objectively justify that expectation. Courts apply a two-part test: first, the speaker must actually expect the communication not to be intercepted; second, the surrounding circumstances must justify that expectation. Factors include the location and volume of the speech, the presence and proximity of third parties, and any precautions the speaker took to keep the conversation private. If the conversation is loud and easily overheard in a public place, it may not qualify for protection under the federal law at all, so the one-party consent rule never even comes into play. Vermont has no state statute that changes this test, but its voyeurism statute, 13 V.S.A. § 2605(d), adds a narrow Vermont-specific restriction on covert recording inside a home or residence.

Vermont’s voyeurism law makes it a crime to secretly record someone inside a home or residence without their knowledge and consent. The statute covers any format of recording, including audio-only, if it’s done covertly. The law does not apply to openly worn devices in public or semi-public places. If a recording is made openly and the person being recorded is aware the device is active and recording, the law’s consent requirement is met. Vermont courts have not ruled on whether an openly worn device in a private home satisfies the law’s knowledge-and-consent requirement, so the safest approach is to pause recording until everyone present explicitly agrees. This is a narrow state-law restriction layered on top of the federal Wiretap Act’s threshold test.

Vermont is in the Second Circuit, which has not squarely recognized a First Amendment right to record on-duty police officers in public. Some federal district courts in the circuit have suggested such a right exists, but there is no binding appellate decision. In June 2025, the Second Circuit decided Reyes v. City of New York, No. 23-7640 (2d Cir. June 18, 2025), which reinforced this conclusion by finding the plaintiff unlikely to succeed on a First Amendment right-to-record claim and certifying a narrower question about New York’s statutory "Right to Record Act" to the New York Court of Appeals. Because the law is unsettled, if an officer on the scene orders you to stop recording or says it’s illegal, pause all audio capture immediately. Do not resume audio recording during the same encounter based on an assumption about your rights — get attorney review first. Non-audio notes can continue if they don’t function as recording over the officer’s objection.

Vermont’s voyeurism statute, 13 V.S.A. § 2605, includes several narrow exemptions. Law enforcement officers are exempt while performing official duties (§2605(g)), and bona fide private investigators or security guards acting within lawful employment are also exempt (§2605(h)). The statute also exempts the press from liability for acts committed in the course of news gathering, provided the conduct does not otherwise violate law (§2605(h)). An affirmative defense exists if the person recorded was a participant in the conduct being recorded and the recording was made for a legitimate purpose (§2605(i)). These exemptions do not apply to covert audio-only recording inside a home or residence; they only shield specific classes of actors or purposes from liability under the statute.

Vermont’s voyeurism statute, 13 V.S.A. § 2605, criminalizes secretly recording or surveilling another person without their knowledge and consent while they are in a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy within a home or residence. The statute covers any format of recording, including audio-only, and applies regardless of whether the person is nude or partially clothed. First offenses carry up to two years imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine, while second or subsequent offenses carry up to three years imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine. A first offense is classified as a misdemeanor because the maximum term does not exceed two years, while a second offense or a disclosure offense under subsection (c) qualifies as a felony under 13 V.S.A. § 1, which defines a felony as an offense with a maximum term of more than two years. The statute includes exemptions for law enforcement officers acting in their official capacity and for bona fide private investigators or security guards acting within lawful employment.

Vermont has no state law that requires written consent or advance notice before collecting or storing a biometric voiceprint from an adult. The only biometric-related law is the Vermont Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, which takes effect January 1, 2027. That law defines “voice prints” as a type of biometric data, but it applies only to minors and to businesses that meet specific thresholds. It imposes design and transparency duties, not a general consent requirement for adult voice enrollment. If a breach exposes stored voiceprints, Vermont’s Security Breach Notice Act requires notification because biometric data is treated as personally identifiable information.

If a company’s database of stored voiceprints is breached, Vermont’s Security Breach Notice Act requires the company to notify affected Vermont residents. The law defines “personally identifiable information” to include “unique biometric data generated from measurements or technical analysis of human body,” which covers voiceprints. The notice must be given without unreasonable delay. Vermont has no separate biometric privacy law with a private right of action, so enforcement for biometric issues generally falls to the Attorney General. The Age-Appropriate Design Code Act, once effective, gives the Attorney General authority to enforce its design and transparency rules for minors. There is a plausible but untested argument that a private plaintiff could sue derivatively for a violation of the Age-Appropriate Design Code Act under the Consumer Fraud Act’s general private right of action, but this is not settled law.

Imagine you’re wearing a recording device in a public park when two people start a loud argument. They’re standing in the open, voices raised, with others nearby who can clearly hear. Under federal law, this conversation likely isn’t a protected “oral communication” because the speakers took no steps to keep it private. The one-party consent rule therefore doesn’t apply — no consent is required from either person. You can continue recording without legal risk under Vermont’s rules. If the argument moves into a private backyard where others can’t overhear, pause recording until everyone present explicitly agrees to be recorded at the time the recording begins; consent given later does not cure earlier segments.