Vermont: Call and Conversation Recording Consent Requirements
The short answer
Vermont has no wiretapping or recording-consent statute of its own, so the federal Wiretap Act supplies the operative rule: a participant in a call or conversation, or someone with one party's consent, may record it unless the purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511). That makes Vermont a one-party-consent state in practice. Vermont's Constitution gives the home heightened privacy, but that limit applies to warrantless police recording, not to a private person recording their own conversation, and no Vermont law imposes an all-party rule.
Ask Ezel about your situation
This is the general rule in Vermont. Ezel applies current Vermont law to your specific facts and answers with citations to the statutes.
| Governing law and covered recording | No Vermont statute governs audio recording of calls or conversations—Title 13 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure) has no wiretapping, eavesdropping, or interception chapter. The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2522) supplies the operative rule. Separate Vermont laws cover different ground: 13 V.S.A. § 2605 (voyeurism) reaches visual recording of intimate areas, and Title 13 chapter 232 (Electronic Communication Privacy Act) governs government access to electronic data. |
|---|---|
| Whose consent a participant needs | One party, under federal law. No Vermont statute requires all-party consent; 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) lets a person who is a party, or who has one party's prior consent, record a wire, oral, or electronic communication unless the purpose is a criminal or tortious act. |
| Privacy, confidentiality, or secrecy trigger | Under federal law an in-person 'oral communication' is protected only when the speaker has a justified expectation it will not be intercepted; public speech is outside it. Vermont's Constitution (Chapter I, Article 11) gives the home heightened privacy, but only against warrantless police recording (State v. Geraw; State v. Blow)—it is not a private all-party rule. |
| Telephone, in-person, and electronic coverage | No Vermont distinction; the federal one-party rule applies alike to telephone, in-person, and electronic communications. Under the federal Act 'electronic communication' reaches transfers of writing, images, sounds, and data such as text and email. |
| How consent or notice is given | No Vermont-prescribed method—no tone, script, or written form. Under federal law a participant's own consent suffices; if you rely on another party, that party's prior consent is required. |
| Major participant-facing exceptions | The federal criminal-or-tortious-purpose limit removes the participant exception (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). Distinct Vermont statutes address other conduct: § 2605 (visual voyeurism of intimate areas) and the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (government access), not ordinary participant recording. |
| Criminal classification and penalty | Vermont has no recording-consent crime. Under the federal Wiretap Act, an unlawful interception, disclosure, or use is punishable by a fine, imprisonment for not more than five years, or both (18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)(a)). |
| Civil remedy and evidence effect | No Vermont recording-specific civil claim. The federal Act allows a civil action (18 U.S.C. § 2520) for the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits, $100 per day of violation, or $10,000, plus punitive damages and attorneys' fees. General privacy torts may also apply. No Vermont statute makes a lawful participant recording inadmissible. |
| Interstate and federal boundary | Because Vermont has no statute, the federal one-party rule is the operative floor (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)). Another participant may be in an all-party-consent state whose stricter law can apply, so obtaining every participant's consent is the prudent baseline for a multistate call. |
Compare this rule across all 50 states + DC →
How Vermont's recording rule works
Vermont is unusual: it has no wiretapping or recording-consent statute at all. The official index of Title 13, the state's criminal code, runs from assaults and breach of the peace through computer crimes and search warrants without any chapter on eavesdropping or interception of communications. Two neighboring provisions are sometimes mistaken for one: 13 V.S.A. § 2605 is a voyeurism statute that reaches secretly photographing or recording a person's "intimate areas," a visual-privacy offense, not an audio-recording rule; and Title 13 chapter 232, the Vermont Electronic Communication Privacy Act, governs when the government may compel access to a person's electronic data, not whether you may record your own call.
With no state statute, the operative rule is the federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2522). Under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d), a person who is a party to a wire, oral, or electronic communication — or who has the prior consent of one party — may record it, unless the recording is made to commit a criminal or tortious act. In practice that makes Vermont a one-party-consent state: you may record a call or conversation you are part of without telling anyone else. The same rule applies whether the exchange is by phone, in person, or electronic. For an in-person conversation, federal law protects only speech where the speaker has a justified expectation it will not be intercepted, so recording in a public place where no one could reasonably expect privacy is generally outside the Act.
If someone records a communication they have no part in and without any party's consent, the federal Act makes it a crime punishable by a fine, up to five years' imprisonment, or both (18 U.S.C. § 2511(4)(a)), and it authorizes a civil suit under 18 U.S.C. § 2520 for the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits, $100 per day of violation, or $10,000, along with punitive damages and attorneys' fees.
What trips people up
Vermont is not an "all-party" state, despite what some sites say. A common online claim is that Vermont requires everyone's consent to record at home. That misreads the state's constitutional case law. In State v. Geraw, the Vermont Supreme Court held that Chapter I, Article 11 of the Vermont Constitution bars the police from secretly recording a home interview without a warrant, and in State v. Blow it reached the same result for a police-wired informant inside a home. Those cases limit the government; they do not create an all-party-consent rule for a private person recording their own conversation, and Vermont has no statute that does.
The purpose of the recording still matters. Even as a participant, recording to commit a criminal or tortious act — to extort or defraud, for example — loses the federal one-party protection.
An interstate call can pull in a stricter state's law. Because Vermont supplies no rule of its own, the federal one-party floor governs here, but if another participant is in an all-party-consent state, that state's law may apply.
Common questions
Can I record a phone call I am on without telling the other person? Yes. As a party to the call you supply the one party's consent the federal Wiretap Act requires, and no Vermont statute adds an all-party rule. Be cautious if anyone on the call is in an all-party-consent state.
Is recording at home different in Vermont? The Vermont home-privacy cases (Geraw, Blow) restrict police recording without a warrant, not a private participant recording their own conversation. Still, secretly recording someone in a private home can raise separate privacy-tort exposure, so discretion is wise.
What is the penalty for recording a conversation I have no part in? Under the federal Wiretap Act that can be a crime punishable by up to five years' imprisonment, plus a civil suit for statutory damages of at least $100 per day or $10,000, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees (18 U.S.C. §§ 2511, 2520).
Statutes and sources
- Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13 — chapter index for the criminal code, confirming no wiretapping/eavesdropping/interception chapter. https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/title/13 (accessed 2026-07-20)
- 13 V.S.A. § 2605 — voyeurism (visual recording of intimate areas), a boundary provision distinct from audio recording. https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/13/059/02605 (accessed 2026-07-20)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511 — federal participant/one-party consent rule (2511(2)(d)) and criminal penalty (2511(4)(a)). https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section2511&num=0&edition=prelim (accessed 2026-07-20)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2520 — federal civil remedy: statutory, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section2520&num=0&edition=prelim (accessed 2026-07-20)
- State v. Geraw, 173 Vt. 350 (2002) — Article 11 bars warrantless police recording in the home (state-action limit, not a private all-party rule). https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1439872/ (accessed 2026-07-20)
Source links
Every statute quoted above, linked, with the date we checked it.
Get the answer for your situation
You just read how Vermont handles this in general. Ezel applies current Vermont law to your facts and answers your specific question, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.