Recording Law for Video-Only Recording in Vermont

Vermont does not have a state law that restricts video-only recording in public or semi-public places, and federal law does not impose any additional restrictions on video-only recording. That means you can record silent video or take photos in those settings without breaking Vermont law. The only Vermont statute that mentions recording at all is the voyeurism law, 13 V.S.A. § 2605. That law bans secretly recording or surveilling someone inside a home or residence without their knowledge and consent. It also bans recording someone’s intimate areas without consent. Recording disputes, arguments, or interactions with strangers or police in public places is not covered by this law, as long as you aren’t secretly filming inside a home or recording intimate body parts.

The key Vermont statute is 13 V.S.A. § 2605, titled "Voyeurism." This law makes it a crime to intentionally record or surveil someone without their knowledge and consent while they are in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy within a home or residence. It also bans recording someone’s intimate areas without consent. The law applies to recording "in any format," which includes video and photos, and it reaches both covert and open recording inside a home or residence. Crucially, the statute’s disjunctive language—"conduct surveillance or intentionally photograph, film, or record in any format"—also covers covert audio-only recording inside a home, not just visual media. Importantly, it only applies to recording inside a home or residence or to recording intimate areas; recording in public or semi-public places is not covered by this statute.

Vermont has no state wiretapping or eavesdropping law that applies to private citizens’ recording. Because of that, federal law fills the gap for audio recording, but it does not restrict video-only recording. The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) only applies when you record audio, and even then only if the conversation qualifies as a protected "oral communication" under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(2)—a two-part reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test that requires both subjective and objective privacy expectations. For video-only recording, Vermont’s lack of a state wiretapping law means there is no additional consent requirement. This makes silent video recording unrestricted in Vermont, unlike states with strict wiretapping or biometric privacy laws.

Vermont has no law that specifically allows or restricts recording police officers. The Second Circuit, which covers Vermont, has not squarely recognized a First Amendment right to record on-duty police officers in public, though some federal district courts within the circuit have suggested such a right exists. In June 2025, the Second Circuit decided Reyes v. City of New York, No. 23-7640 (2d Cir. June 18, 2025), which reinforced this unsettled landscape by finding the plaintiff unlikely to succeed on a First Amendment right-to-record claim while certifying a narrower question about New York’s statutory "Right to Record Act" to the New York Court of Appeals. Because of this unsettled legal landscape, recording police in public carries some legal risk. If an officer tells you to stop recording, pausing the recording is the safest choice until you can get legal advice.

Recording inside someone else’s home is treated differently. Vermont’s voyeurism law, 13 V.S.A. § 2605(d), makes it a crime to record someone without their knowledge and consent while they are in a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy within a home. This applies regardless of whether you are openly wearing a visible camera. The law requires that the person being recorded must know you are recording and must agree to it at the time the recording occurs. Visibility alone does not prove the person knew you were recording or consented. If you record inside someone’s home, you must have clear, affirmative evidence that the person knew and agreed to the recording at the time it happened. A first offense is punishable by up to 2 years imprisonment and/or a $1,000 fine; a second or subsequent offense carries up to 3 years imprisonment and/or a $5,000 fine.

Imagine you are wearing a camera that only records video, no audio, while you walk down a city sidewalk. Two people nearby start arguing loudly. You turn your camera toward them to record the incident. This is not against Vermont law. The voyeurism statute does not apply because the argument is in a public place and does not involve intimate body parts. The lack of a state wiretapping law means there is no consent requirement for the video-only recording. However, if one of the people tells you to stop recording, pausing the recording is the safer choice due to the unsettled legal landscape around recording police and the risk of qualified immunity exposure for officers who interfere with recording. This pause is a risk-management response to the Second Circuit’s lack of a squarely-recognized First Amendment right to record police, even though the federal one-party-consent Wiretap Act analysis alone would otherwise permit continued recording.