Recording Law for Phone & Video Calls in Vermont

Vermont has no state wiretapping or eavesdropping statute that requires all parties to consent before you record an oral communication. Because of that, the federal Wiretap Act’s one-party consent rule applies by default to any oral communication in Vermont, but only once the conversation first qualifies as a protected "oral communication" under the federal Wiretap Act’s threshold test at 18 U.S.C. §2510(2). Under that test, a communication is protected only if the speaker exhibited an expectation of privacy that the circumstances objectively justified. If the conversation clears that threshold, federal law allows you to record an oral communication if at least one person taking part in the communication knows about and agrees to the recording. That means you can record your own conversations without telling the others, as long as you are part of the conversation. This rule covers in-person conversations, phone calls, video calls (Zoom, FaceTime, Teams, etc.), and any other setting where people speak to one another, provided the speaker’s expectation of privacy is reasonable under the circumstances. The federal rule applies everywhere in the U.S., including Vermont, because Vermont has no state wiretap law of its own for private citizens making recordings.

Vermont’s voyeurism statute makes it a crime to secretly record or conduct surveillance on someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as inside a home or residence. The law bars intentionally recording or surveilling a person without their knowledge and consent while they are in a home or residence where privacy is expected. The statute uses the phrase "record in any format" and also separately prohibits "conduct surveillance," so it covers both audio and video recording as well as covert observation intended to spy on or invade privacy. Importantly, this law reaches covert audio-only recording inside a home in addition to video and photographic recording, and it applies only to covert recording or surveillance inside a home or residence — it does not restrict recording phone calls, video calls, or conversations in public places.

Federal law allows you to record police officers performing their public duties in public places, including traffic stops and street encounters, but only if the conversation first qualifies as a protected "oral communication" under the federal Wiretap Act’s threshold test (18 U.S.C. §2510(2)) — that is, the speaker exhibited an expectation of privacy that the circumstances objectively justified. Vermont sits in the federal Second Circuit, which has not squarely recognized a First Amendment right to record on-duty police performing public duties; some district courts within the circuit have recognized such a right at the trial level, but no controlling circuit precedent exists. Because of that uncertainty, officers in Vermont may still order you to stop recording, even though federal wiretap law would otherwise allow it. If an officer tells you to stop recording, stop capturing audio immediately and do not resume until you have reviewed the situation with a lawyer. Video without audio can continue if you choose, as long as you comply with any lawful police orders.

If you record only video without capturing any audio, Vermont places no restrictions on that recording. The state’s voyeurism statute only restricts covert recording or surveillance inside a home or residence and the recording of someone’s intimate areas without consent. Recording a dispute, argument, or police interaction on a public street using a camera with the microphone turned off is not restricted by any Vermont law. Federal wiretap rules do not apply to video-only recording because they govern audio capture, not silent video.

Vermont’s professional conduct rules for lawyers align with a 2001 American Bar Association opinion stating that secretly recording a conversation is not inherently deceitful if the recording itself is lawful. Vermont’s Professional Responsibility Board adopted this view in 2008, making clear that the ethics issue arises only if the lawyer lies when asked whether a conversation is being recorded, not from the recording itself. If you are a lawyer, lying about recording can violate ethics rules, but making an undisclosed lawful recording does not. Always consider the practical risks of recording, even when it is legally permitted.

Imagine you are a freelancer in Vermont and you have a weekly check-in call with a client using Teams. You want to record the call to review details later. Under Vermont law, you can record the call because Vermont has no state wiretapping law and federal one-party consent applies, provided the conversation clears the federal Wiretap Act’s reasonable-expectation-of-privacy threshold. You do not need to tell the client you are recording, as long as you are on the call. If the call takes place inside the client’s home office, Vermont’s voyeurism law could come into play if you secretly record or conduct surveillance without consent, so make sure everyone present knows the call is being recorded and that you are actively capturing it. If you only record the video without audio, no consent is required at all.

Vermont’s voyeurism statute criminalizes secretly recording or surveilling someone inside a home or residence without their knowledge and consent. A first offense is punishable by up to two years imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine; a second or subsequent offense can be punished by up to three years imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine. Only a second or subsequent offense or a subsection (c) disclosure offense qualifies as a felony under Vermont law, because a first offense does not exceed the two-year maximum term that defines a felony in Vermont. The law applies regardless of whether the recording captures nudity or intimate areas, and it reaches both audio and video recording as well as covert observation intended to spy on or invade privacy. This provision does not apply to recording in public places or to phone/video calls made outside a home.