Recording Law for Police & Civil Rights in Wyoming

Wyoming follows a one-party-consent rule for recording conversations. Under Wyoming Statutes § 7-3-702(b)(iv), you can record any conversation you’re part of without telling the other person. This applies to in-person talks, phone calls, or electronic messages. The law says: "Any person from intercepting an oral, wire or electronic communication where the person is a party to the communication or where one (1) of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act." The rule is the same whether you’re recording a phone call or a face-to-face chat. The statute’s one-party exception is broad and covers any person who is a party to the communication or who has obtained the prior consent of one party, and it applies uniformly to oral, wire, and electronic communications without distinction based on medium.

Wyoming courts follow the Tenth Circuit’s rule that there is a First Amendment right to film on-duty police performing their duties in public. In Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022) (decided July 11, 2022), the court held that the First Amendment right to film on-duty police performing their duties in public was clearly established by 2019, reversing a grant of qualified immunity and expressly joining the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits that recognize this right. Earlier, in Frasier v. Evans, 992 F.3d 1003 (10th Cir. 2021) (cert. denied Nov. 1, 2021), the same court had declined to decide the question for a 2014 incident, holding only that the right was not clearly established as of that time; it never held no such right exists. This means you have a constitutional right to record police officers carrying out their official duties in public spaces like streets or sidewalks. As of Irizarry, the Tenth Circuit — and thus Wyoming — affirmatively recognizes this right.

Wyoming’s wiretap law only restricts recording if the conversation qualifies as an "oral communication" under Wyoming Statutes § 7-3-701(a)(xi). That definition requires a two-part test: the speaker must both subjectively "reasonably expect" the communication is not subject to interception and the "circumstances justify" that expectation. If an officer shouts at someone in a busy intersection or speaks in a public park where others can hear, there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy. In those cases, the wiretap law doesn’t apply at all, and no consent is required. Courts haven’t spelled out a detailed test for this, so the safest approach is to record only in truly open, public settings where others can naturally hear the conversation. The statutory definition of "oral communication" excludes any electronic communication and hinges on the speaker’s reasonable expectation of non-interception justified by the circumstances.

Wyoming’s wiretap law targets the interception of "oral, wire or electronic communication," which focuses on sound. The statute defines "intercept" as "the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any oral, wire or electronic communication." Silent video of a scene—like a police encounter—doesn’t involve capturing the content of a transmitted communication, so it isn’t restricted by the wiretap law. However, if you add audio to the video, the one-party-consent rule applies to the audio portion. The wiretap statute’s definitions are text-based and do not reach silent video capture of a physical scene absent an accompanying audio component that implicates the interception of a communication. Separately, Wyoming’s voyeurism law (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-4-304) prohibits recording someone without consent in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, like a bathroom or changing room. That statute criminalizes photographing, filming, or recording a person in such settings regardless of audio.

Intentionally intercepting a conversation you’re not part of can lead to criminal charges. Wyoming Statutes § 7-3-702 makes it a felony to intentionally intercept an oral, wire, or electronic communication without consent, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $1,000 fine. There’s also a misdemeanor tier for certain radio interceptions under § 7-3-702(f), which applies to interceptions involving the radio portion of cellular, cordless, or paging communications. If you’re sued, you could face a civil claim under § 7-3-710, which allows the injured party to recover actual damages (no less than $1,000 per day), punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. These penalties apply regardless of whether the recording was made in person or electronically. The civil remedy is available to any aggrieved person and does not require proof of special damages.

Imagine you’re standing in a store parking lot when a police officer stops a driver for a broken taillight. The officer shouts instructions at the driver in a voice loud enough for nearby shoppers to hear. You start recording with your phone. Because the officer’s words are spoken in a public place with no reasonable expectation of privacy, the wiretap law doesn’t apply. The one-party-consent rule also does not apply here, since you are not a party to the conversation and are not relying on consent from a party; instead, your right to record is protected by the First Amendment and the fact that the wiretap law does not apply to public statements with no reasonable expectation of privacy. Under these authorities, this recording is lawful. If the officer orders you to stop recording and you refuse, the situation could escalate, but the recording itself remains protected. The Tenth Circuit’s decision in Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282 (10th Cir. 2022), confirms that recording on-duty police in public is constitutionally protected.

Wyoming’s wiretap law does not create a home-specific exception, and the one-party-consent rule applies the same way regardless of location. However, the wiretap law only restricts recording if the conversation qualifies as an "oral communication" under Wyoming Statutes § 7-3-701(a)(xi), which requires a reasonable expectation of privacy. In a home, such an expectation is typically present, so the wiretap law’s consent rule applies if you are not a party to the conversation. Separately, Wyoming’s voyeurism statute (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-4-304) prohibits recording someone without consent in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a bathroom, bedroom, or changing area. That statute criminalizes photographing, filming, or recording a person in such settings regardless of whether the recording device captures audio. If you are considering recording inside a home or similar private space, consult a lawyer to assess whether the wiretap law or the voyeurism statute applies. The voyeurism statute is the closer statutory analog for home/private-space recording issues, and no Wyoming appellate decision confirms the absence of a home exception under the wiretap act.