Colorado laws on recording in-person conversations allow you to tape any conversations you participate in, even if no one else knows you are taping it. You can also record other people’s private conversations as long as at least one party to the conversation consents to you taping it.
Illegally recording an in-person conversation is prosecuted in Colorado as eavesdropping under CRS 18-9-304. This is a class 2 misdemeanor carrying up to 120 days in jail and/or up to $750.
Note that these penalties apply if you use or disclose a recording that you know was taped illegally, even if you were not the one who taped it.1
Can I record conversations in public places?
Yes, Colorado laws on recording in-person conversations permit you to tape other people’s conversations in any place where the participants have no reasonable expectation of privacy.2 Examples are such public places are:
- a table at a restaurant
- a park bench
- on a city bus
Do I need consent to record the police?
No. You may tape police officers in Colorado without first getting their consent as long as you do not interfere with the lawful performance of their duties. If they see you taping, the police may not take your phone or camera unless:
- you consent, or
- the police have a search warrant or subpoena, or
- when exigent circumstances exist such that the peace officer believes it is necessary to save a life or when the peace officer has a reasonable, articulable, good-faith belief that seizure of your device is necessary to prevent the destruction of the evidentiary recording while a search warrant is obtained.
If the police illegally interfere with your right to record or otherwise retaliate against you, you may file a complaint with the law enforcement agency in pursuit of:
- $500 for each recording that was damaged;
- money to replace the phone or camera;
- lawyers’ fees; and
- punitive damages.
You can sue civilly if the complaint is denied.3
Do eavesdropping laws apply to news reporters?
For the most part, no. If someone provides an illegally-obtained recording to a journalist, the journalist will likely escape any criminal or civil liability for publishing the recording as long as they had nothing to do with making the illegal recording.4
Can I record my conversations in my workplace?
As long as one party to the conversation (which can be you) consents to the recording, you are breaking no criminal law by recording a workplace conversation. Plus if you believe you are being discriminated against at work, getting a video- or audio- recording of the discrimination in action may serve as valuable evidence if you bring a lawsuit against your employer.
Note that there may be company policies prohibiting you from making recordings, and that doing so could get you disciplined or fired. It is advised you speak with an employment law attorney before making any recordings.5
What is the eavesdropping statute?
Colorado Revised Statute 18-9-304 – Eavesdropping prohibited – penalty
(1) Any person not visibly present during a conversation or discussion commits eavesdropping if he:
(a) Knowingly overhears or records such conversation or discussion without the consent of at least one of the principal parties thereto, or attempts to do so; or
(b) Intentionally overhears or records such conversation or discussion for the purpose of committing, aiding, or abetting the commission of an unlawful act; or
(c) Knowingly uses for any purpose, discloses, or attempts to use or disclose to any other person the contents of any such conversation or discussion while knowing or having reason to know the information was obtained in violation of this section; or
(d) Knowingly aids, authorizes, agrees with, employs, permits, or intentionally conspires with any person to violate the provisions of this section.
(2) Eavesdropping is a class 2 misdemeanor.
Tape-recording other people’s conversations is against Colorado law unless they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Can I record telephone calls in Colorado?
Colorado is a one-party consent state. This means you may legally wiretap your own phone conversations without anyone else’s consent. You can also record other people’s phone conversations as long as one participant in the phone call consents. Though there is one caveat:
If any of the parties to the phone call is not in Colorado, you have to abide by both Colorado law and the law of the state the other person is in. The other state may be a two-party consent state, making intercepting the conversation illegal without everyone’s consent.6
Wiretapping penalties
Illegal wiretapping is a class 2 misdemeanor carrying up to 120 days in jail and/or up to $750.8
Meanwhile, violating federal laws for wiretapping carries up to five years in prison.9
Note that placing a bug on someone else’s phone in order to wiretap them may also make you vulnerable to prosecution for criminal trespass charges.
What about hidden cameras?
It is generally lawful to put hidden cameras on your property for security or business purposes if reasonable notice is given to the public.10
The caveat is that Colorado law prohibits knowingly observing or visually recording another person’s intimate body parts without their consent and if they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The penalty for this offense of criminal invasion of privacy (being a “Peeping Tom”) is the same as for eavesdropping: A class 2 misdemeanor carrying up to 120 days in jail and/or up to $750. The main difference is that you may also have to register as a sex offender.
What is the wiretapping statute?
Colorado Revised Statute 18-9-303 – Wiretapping prohibited – penalty
(1) Any person not a sender or intended receiver of a telephone or telegraph communication commits wiretapping if he:
(a) Knowingly overhears, reads, takes, copies, or records a telephone, telegraph, or electronic communication without the consent of either a sender or a receiver thereof or attempts to do so; or
(b) Intentionally overhears, reads, takes, copies, or records a telephone, telegraph, or electronic communication for the purpose of committing or aiding or abetting the commission of an unlawful act; or
(c) Knowingly uses for any purpose or discloses to any person the contents of any such communication, or attempts to do so, while knowing or having reason to know the information was obtained in violation of this section; or
(d) Knowingly taps or makes any connection with any telephone or telegraph line, wire, cable, or instrument belonging to another or with any electronic, mechanical, or other device belonging to another or installs any device whether connected or not which permits the interception of messages; or
(e) Repealed.
(f) Knowingly uses any apparatus to unlawfully do, or cause to be done, any act prohibited by this section or aids, authorizes, agrees with, employs, permits, or intentionally conspires with any person to violate the provisions of this section.
(2) Wiretapping is a class 2 misdemeanor.
Legal References:
- CRS 18-9-304 – Eavesdropping prohibited – penalty. CRS 18-9-301 – Definitions. People v. Lesslie (Colo. App. 1996) 939 P.2d 443 (“Whether the circumstances of a communication justify a belief that it is not subject to interception is analyzed in the same manner as the question whether an investigative activity amounts to a search: that is, whether there is a justifiable expectation of privacy at the time and place of the communication.“). People v. Morton (Colo. 1975) 539 P.2d 1255 (“[F]or the exclusionary application of Section 16-15-102(10) to be operative, it must not only be at the behest of an aggrieved party, but, critically, it must be shown that the communication was unlawfully intercepted.”). People v. Blehm (Colo. 1980) 623 P.2d 411 (“[D]efendant’s [inmate’s] conversations were not within the statutory definition of a “wire communication” because they did not involve the facilities of a common carrier, and they were not within the statutory definition of an “oral communication” because there was no justifiable expectation of privacy.”). HB 23-1293.
- Same.
- CRS 16-3-311 – Peace officer incident recordings. Irizarry v. Yehi (10th Cir. 2022) 38 F.4th 1282 (“there is a First Amendment right to film the police performing their duties in public”). CRS 13-21-128 – Civil liability for destruction or unlawful seizure of recordings by a law enforcement officer – definitions.
- CRS 18-9-305 – Exceptions (“Nothing in sections 18-9-302 to 18-9-304 shall be interpreted to prevent a news agency, or an employee thereof, from using the accepted tools and equipment of that news medium in the course of reporting or investigating a public and newsworthy event;”). Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) 532 U.S. 514 (“The suit at hand involves the repeated intentional disclosure of an illegally intercepted cellular telephone conversation about a public issue. The persons who made the disclosures did not participate in the interception, but they did know—or at least had reason to know—that the interception was unlawful. Accordingly, these cases present a conflict between interests of the highest order—on the one hand, the interest in the full and free dissemination of information concerning public issues, and, on the other hand, the interest in individual privacy and, more specifically, in fostering private speech. The Framers of the First Amendment surely did not foresee the advances in science that produced the conversation, the interception, or the conflict that gave rise to this action. It is therefore not surprising that Circuit judges, as well as the Members of this Court, have come to differing conclusions about the First Amendment’s application to this issue. Nevertheless, having considered the interests at stake, we are firmly convinced that the disclosures made by respondents in this suit are protected by the First Amendment.”).
- Note that in 2015, the National Labor Relations Board held that no-recording rules can reasonably be construed by employees to prohibit concerted protected activity. Whole Foods Market Inc. (December 24, 2015) 363 NLRB No. 87.
- Wiretapping is both a state and federal crime. 18 United States Code § 2511(2)(d) (“It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception unless such communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act”); Col. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-303 – Wiretapping prohibited – penalty. Other one-party consent states include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Meanwhile, all party consent states are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington. People in all-party consent states have a higher reasonable expectation of privacy.
- CRS 18-9-303(2).
- CRS 18-9-303(2). Prior to March 1, 2022, eavesdropping or wiretapping a cordless phone was a class 1 misdemeanor, with penalties including 6 to 18 months in jail and a fine of up to $5,000. SB21-271.
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)(a).
- CRS 18-9-305 (“nor shall said sections prevent any person from using wiretapping or eavesdropping devices on his own premises for security or business purposes if reasonable notice of the use of such devices is given to the public.”).
- CRS 18-7-801 – Criminal invasion of privacy.
