Recording Law for Police & Civil Rights in Vermont

Vermont has no state wiretap or eavesdropping law governing private citizens’ recording of oral or electronic communications. Because of this gap, the federal one-party consent rule applies by default: any party to a conversation may record without notifying the others, unless the recording is done for a criminal or tortious purpose. This includes encounters with on-duty officers during traffic stops, arrests, or other public interactions, provided the officer is performing public duties and the encounter occurs in a genuinely public space. The federal Wiretap Act’s one-party consent rule (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) fills the gap left by Vermont’s lack of a state wiretap law. Vermont’s narrow voyeurism statute (13 V.S.A. § 2605) does not reach the wearable-device use case described here, as it only criminalizes secretly recording someone’s nude or undergarment-clad intimate areas without consent where privacy is reasonably expected, or secretly recording or conducting surveillance of any person without consent inside a home or residence. However, Vermont sits in the Second Circuit, which has not squarely recognized a First Amendment right to record on-duty police in public. A recent Second Circuit decision, Reyes v. City of New York, No. 23-7640 (2d Cir. June 18, 2025), addressed an indoor police-precinct lobby and a statutory 'Right to Record Act' question, not a general First Amendment right to record police in public, and found the plaintiff unlikely to succeed on the claim—reinforcing the conclusion that the Second Circuit has not clearly ruled in favor of such a right in outdoor public settings. Because of this uncertainty, officers may still challenge your recording on scene, even though the federal wiretap rule likely allows it.

Recording in genuinely public spaces—like a sidewalk, street, or park—is generally allowed under federal one-party consent. Vermont’s voyeurism law (13 V.S.A. § 2605) restricts secretly recording or photographing someone’s intimate areas without consent where privacy is reasonably expected, and it also criminalizes secretly recording or conducting surveillance of any person without consent inside a home or residence. It does not reach ordinary non-intimate public conduct, including arguments and police encounters. There is no controlling Vermont case law on whether a general common-law privacy tort could limit audio recording in public when speakers take steps to keep their conversation private—such as moving away from others or lowering their voices—and secondary sources caution that no such controlling authority exists. To avoid disputes, treat public-space recordings as permitted by default, but pause if the observable circumstances suggest the speakers intended privacy despite being in public.

Vermont’s voyeurism law (13 V.S.A. § 2605(d)) makes it a crime to secretly record or conduct surveillance of, or to photograph, film, or record in any format, a person without their knowledge and consent while that person is in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy within a home or residence. This includes audio recording, not just video. The statute requires both knowledge and consent to exist at the time of recording; visibility of a recording device alone does not satisfy either element, and no Vermont case has tested whether an openly worn visible device satisfies the 'knowledge and consent' requirement. Because of this uncertainty, the safest approach is to avoid recording inside a private home unless everyone present explicitly agrees to be recorded at the time the recording begins. State v. Geraw, 173 Vt. 350, 795 A.2d 1219 (2002), bars police from secretly recording suspects in their homes without a warrant, but that case only restricts government actors, not private citizens. Penalties for a first offense under § 2605(j) are up to two years imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine; subsequent offenses carry up to three years and/or a $5,000 fine.

Under federal law, you are likely allowed to keep recording an on-duty officer performing public duties in a public space, because the officer has no protected expectation of privacy in that setting. However, Vermont is in the Second Circuit, which has not squarely recognized a First Amendment right to continue recording after an officer orders you to stop. Some Second Circuit district courts have recognized the right at the trial level, but no binding circuit precedent exists, and a recent Second Circuit decision, Reyes v. City of New York, No. 23-7640 (2d Cir. June 18, 2025), addressed an indoor statutory claim and found the plaintiff unlikely to succeed on a First Amendment right-to-record claim—reinforcing the unsettled nature of the law. Because the law here is unsettled, the safest approach is to pause audio recording immediately if an officer orders you to stop or states that recording is unlawful. You can continue taking notes or video without audio while waiting for legal review. Do not resume audio recording during the same encounter unless a lawyer confirms it’s safe to do so.

Imagine you’re pulled over on Main Street in Burlington. You clip a small camera to your shirt and start recording as the officer approaches. The officer sees the camera and says, “Turn that off—I don’t want to be recorded.” Under federal one-party consent, you are likely allowed to keep recording, but Vermont is in the Second Circuit, where courts have not squarely recognized a First Amendment right to continue recording after an officer’s order, and some district courts within the circuit have taken a contrary view at the trial level. A recent Second Circuit decision, Reyes v. City of New York, No. 23-7640 (2d Cir. June 18, 2025), addressed an indoor statutory claim and found the plaintiff unlikely to succeed on a First Amendment right-to-record claim—reinforcing the unsettled nature of the law. To avoid a dispute, you pause audio recording but continue taking written notes. Later, you send the footage to a lawyer to review whether continuing the recording would have been lawful under local case law. This example shows why pausing when ordered is the conservative choice in Vermont.

Silent video recording is unrestricted in Vermont for the described use case—capturing disputes, interactions with strangers, or interactions with on-duty police in public or semi-public settings—as long as you are not secretly recording someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Vermont’s voyeurism law (13 V.S.A. § 2605) only restricts secretly recording or photographing someone’s intimate areas without consent where privacy is reasonably expected, or secretly recording or conducting surveillance of any person without consent inside a home or residence. Recording a traffic stop, public argument, or police interaction with no audio involved does not fall under these restrictions. Because Vermont has no state wiretap law, video-only recording was never regulated by an audio-consent statute in the first place. The federal Wiretap Act’s civil cause of action (18 U.S.C. § 2520) provides a potential remedy for illegal interceptions, though it does not apply to video-only recordings.

Vermont’s voyeurism statute (13 V.S.A. § 2605) sets graduated penalties. A first offense is punishable by up to two years imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine, while a second or subsequent offense carries 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 images or recordings, which is punishable by up to five years imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine. The statute includes exemptions for law enforcement officers acting within the scope of their official duties (§ 2605(g)) and for the press (§ 2605(h)), and it provides an affirmative defense for certain conduct (§ 2605(i)).

No. Vermont has no state wiretap law, so the federal one-party consent rule applies to everyone, including police. The only exception is Vermont’s voyeurism law (13 V.S.A. § 2605), which restricts secretly recording someone’s nude or undergarment-clad intimate areas without consent where privacy is reasonably expected, or secretly recording or conducting surveillance of any person without consent inside a home or residence. Recording police in public is treated the same as recording anyone else under these rules. Separately, State v. Geraw, 173 Vt. 350, 795 A.2d 1219 (2002), bars police from secretly recording suspects in their homes without a warrant, but that case only restricts government actors, not private citizens.