Recording Law for Recording in Public in Vermont

Vermont does not have a state wiretapping or eavesdropping statute that governs private citizens recording their own conversations. Because of this, the federal Wiretap Act fills the gap. Under federal law, you can record a conversation if at least one person taking part in the conversation consents. That means you can record your own conversations without telling the other person, as long as you are part of the conversation. This rule covers both in-person talks and phone calls. Vermont’s only communications-related law is the Vermont Electronic Communication Privacy Act (Chapter 232, 13 V.S.A. §§ 8101–8108), but it regulates only what law enforcement can compel from electronic-communication providers and real-time interception devices used by law enforcement — it does not restrict private-party recording. Vermont also has a narrow voyeurism law (13 V.S.A. § 2605) that restricts secretly recording someone’s intimate areas or covertly recording inside a home, but it does not apply to ordinary public conversations or interactions.

Recording conversations or activity in places like parks, sidewalks, and streets is generally allowed under federal law, but only if the conversation first qualifies as a protected "oral communication" under the federal Wiretap Act’s threshold test. The federal Wiretap Act defines a protected "oral communication" as any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation. Courts apply a two-part, Katz-style reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test: (1) the speaker must actually expect the communication not to be intercepted, and (2) the surrounding circumstances must justify that expectation. Factors include the location and volume of the speech, the presence and proximity of third parties, and precautions the speaker took to keep the conversation private. If a statement does not clear this threshold — for example, a loud argument on a public sidewalk within earshot of bystanders — it is not a protected "oral communication" under federal law at all, so the one-party-consent regime never engages. Vermont’s voyeurism statute (13 V.S.A. § 2605) specifically states it does not reach ordinary public conduct, so it does not create an extra restriction here. However, if someone steps away from others, lowers their voice, or takes other steps to keep the conversation private even in a public place, a court might later decide that expectation of privacy still existed. For now, the safest approach is to treat public-place recording as allowed only when the conversation is clearly audible to bystanders or otherwise lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy, but pause if you notice clear privacy-seeking behavior.

Recording inside someone else’s home or private residence is treated differently under Vermont law. 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 the person being recorded is in a place where he or she would have a reasonable expectation of privacy within a home or residence. This applies regardless of whether the device is hidden or openly worn, because simply seeing the device does not mean the person knows it is actively recording or has agreed to it. The law requires both knowledge and consent at the time of recording. If you record inside a home, you must have clear, affirmative evidence that everyone present knew the device was recording and agreed to it before the recording started. Consent given later does not cover what was recorded earlier. This rule applies to guests as well as hosts. A first offense under §2605 is punishable by up to two years imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine; a second or subsequent offense is punishable by up to three years imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine. Separately, State v. Geraw, 173 Vt. 350, 795 A.2d 1219 (Vt. 2002), held that Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution bars warrantless secret in-home audio recording of a suspect by known/invited police, but this constitutional rule restrains only government actors, not private citizens.

Vermont sits in the federal Second Circuit, which has not squarely recognized a First Amendment right to record on-duty police officers performing public duties. Some district courts within the circuit have suggested such a right exists, but there is no controlling appeals court ruling. In June 2025, the Second Circuit decided Reyes v. City of New York, No. 23-7640 (2d Cir. June 18, 2025), in which the panel found the plaintiff unlikely to succeed on his First Amendment right-to-record claim and instead certified a narrower question to the New York Court of Appeals about state/local "Right to Record Act" statutes covering indoor police-precinct lobbies. Because of this uncertainty, continuing to record over an officer’s direct order to stop could expose you to legal risk, even though federal one-party consent would otherwise allow the recording. The safest approach is to stop audio recording immediately if an officer tells you to stop or says the recording is unlawful. You can continue taking notes or video without audio, but do not resume audio capture during the same encounter without first getting legal advice. This is a conservative step because the law in this area is not settled.

Taking photos or video without sound in public places like stores, restaurants, parks, and sidewalks is generally unrestricted in Vermont. The voyeurism statute (13 V.S.A. § 2605) only restricts secretly recording or photographing someone’s intimate areas or covertly recording inside a home; it does not reach ordinary public conduct such as arguments, interactions with strangers, or encounters with police. There is no Vermont statute that restricts video-only recording in public spaces. However, if you are in a place where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as a restroom or a private office), taking photos or video without consent could create legal issues. Always check posted rules in businesses and private properties before recording.

Recording in semi-public places such as stores, offices, or building lobbies is generally allowed under federal law, but only if the conversation first qualifies as a protected "oral communication" under the federal Wiretap Act’s threshold test. The federal Wiretap Act’s reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test applies regardless of whether the setting is nominally public or semi-public. Vermont’s voyeurism statute does not reach ordinary interactions in such settings, but no Vermont case law squarely addresses whether a general common-law privacy tort could create an exception to the federal default. One secondary source cites Hodgdon v. Mt. Mansfield Co., 160 Vt. 150 (1992), as supporting the view that ordinary public conduct is unrestricted, but this citation could not be independently verified against a primary source and should be treated as lower confidence. Until controlling Vermont authority resolves this question, the safer approach is to treat semi-public recording as allowed only when the conversation is clearly audible to bystanders or otherwise lacks a reasonable expectation of privacy, but pause if you notice clear privacy-seeking behavior.

Imagine you are walking down a busy sidewalk in Burlington when you see two people arguing loudly. Others nearby can clearly hear what they are saying. You decide to record the argument on your phone. Under Vermont law, this is allowed because the speakers have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a loud public dispute, and federal one-party consent applies because you are part of the conversation. The state voyeurism law does not apply to ordinary public conduct, so there is no extra restriction. If the argument moves into a nearby alley where the speakers lower their voices and step away from others, the situation changes. In that case, they may have a reasonable expectation of privacy despite being outside a building. The safest approach would be to pause audio recording until you can see whether they remain in a truly public space where their speech is audible to bystanders.

Vermont’s voyeurism statute (13 V.S.A. § 2605(d)) also reaches covert audio-only recording inside a home or residence. The statute’s text — "intentionally conduct surveillance or intentionally photograph, film, or record in any format" — is disjunctive and applies to any covert recording method, whether visual, audio, or both. This means secretly placing an audio recorder inside someone’s home to capture conversations without their knowledge or consent violates Vermont law. A first offense under §2605 is punishable by up to two years imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine; a second or subsequent offense is punishable by up to three years imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine. The statute requires both knowledge and consent at the time of recording; consent given later does not cure earlier segments.