Recording Law for Video-Only Recording in Wyoming

Wyoming’s Communication Interception Act (W.S. 7-3-701 to 7-3-712) focuses on capturing "oral, wire, or electronic communications" and defines "intercept" at W.S. 7-3-701(a)(ix) as "the aural OR OTHER acquisition of the contents of any oral, wire or electronic communication." Silent video recording—with no audio—does not fit this definition because it doesn’t involve capturing aural content or the contents of a transmitted communication. The law’s protections hinge on whether a speaker has a "reasonable expectation" their words won’t be intercepted, a test tied to sound, not images. Because the statute’s operative terms are defined in terms of aural/sound content or transmissions over communications systems, silent video capture of a physical scene, with no accompanying audio, does not fall within the Act’s reach. A separate voyeurism statute, W.S. 6-4-304, may still apply in genuinely private settings regardless of audio.

The Act’s core rule, found at W.S. 7-3-702(a), prohibits intentionally intercepting oral, wire, or electronic communications. The one-party-consent exception at W.S. 7-3-702(b)(iv) allows any person who is part of the conversation—or has the consent of one participant—to lawfully record it, as long as the recording isn’t made "for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act." This exception applies uniformly to oral, wire, or electronic communications, whether in person or over the phone. But for silent video, there’s no interception of a communication at all, so the exception doesn’t come into play.

Wyoming’s wiretap law doesn’t carve out special rules for recording inside homes or private spaces, and no home-specific exception exists in the statute. However, a different law—W.S. 6-4-304, Wyoming’s voyeurism statute—does restrict video recording in certain private contexts. This law makes it illegal to photograph or film someone without their consent in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a bathroom, changing room, or while undressed. So while silent video recording in public is unrestricted under the wiretap law, recording in private settings could run afoul of the voyeurism statute if it involves capturing someone in a context where they expect privacy.

Wyoming falls under the Tenth Circuit’s jurisdiction. 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 is clearly established in the Tenth Circuit as of 2019, reversing a grant of qualified immunity and expressly joining the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits. Earlier uncertainty from Frasier v. Evans, 992 F.3d 1003 (10th Cir. 2021) (cert. denied Nov. 1, 2021), stemmed from a case where the right was not "clearly established" as of the 2014 incident there; Irizarry resolved that issue going forward. You have the right to record police officers in public spaces, even if they object, as long as you don’t interfere with their duties.

Imagine you’re at a public protest in Cheyenne, filming the crowd with a camera that doesn’t capture audio. You’re standing on a sidewalk where anyone can see and hear what’s happening. Under Wyoming law, this silent video recording is unrestricted because it doesn’t involve intercepting any communication. The wiretap law doesn’t apply, and there’s no expectation of privacy in this public setting. If you later add audio to the video, the one-party-consent rule would apply to the audio component of the recording—but the silent video itself is not regulated by the wiretap law.

If you violate the wiretap law by unlawfully intercepting an oral, wire, or electronic communication, you could face criminal penalties. The law classifies this as a felony in most cases, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $1,000 fine. There’s also a civil remedy: anyone harmed by the interception can sue for actual damages (at least $1,000 per day), punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. These penalties apply only to unlawful interception of oral, wire, or electronic communications—meaning recordings that capture sound or the contents of transmitted communications—not to silent video of physical scenes. The voyeurism statute carries its own penalties for improper video recording in private spaces.

Wyoming’s wiretap law only regulates conduct that qualifies as an "oral communication" under W.S. 7-3-701(a)(xi), which is defined as "any oral communication uttered by a person who reasonably expects and circumstances justify the expectation that the communication is not subject to interception." This two-part test—subjective expectation plus objective justification—means the law doesn’t apply to loud public disputes, street-level confrontations, or other statements made where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists. The Wyoming Supreme Court has applied this framework in Almada v. State, 994 P.2d 299 (Wyo. 1999), construing the identically-worded predecessor provision, former W.S. § 7-3-602(b)(iv) (recodified without substantive change as 7-3-702(b)(iv) in 2001), to uphold one-party consent even where the consenting party was a peace officer’s confidential informant. If the speaker’s words are uttered in circumstances where interception is expected (e.g., a loud argument in a public park), the wiretap law doesn’t restrict recording them at all.

The Act’s operative terms—"intercept," "oral communication," "wire communication," and "electronic communication"—are all defined in W.S. 7-3-701 in terms of aural/sound content or transmissions over communications systems (telephone, radio, data networks). Silent video capture of a physical scene, with no accompanying audio, does not fit any of these definitions. W.S. 7-3-701(a)(ix) reaches the "aural OR OTHER acquisition" of the contents of a communication; silent video capture of a physical scene is not the interception of any transmitted communication (no communication is being carried over a covered wire/radio/electromagnetic/photoelectronic/photooptical system whose contents are being acquired), so video-only recording is not restricted by the Act on this textual basis. A separate voyeurism statute, W.S. 6-4-304, could still restrict video recording in genuinely private settings regardless of audio.