Colorado: Call and Conversation Recording Consent Requirements
The short answer
Colorado's offenses are framed around outsiders. Telephone wiretapping under § 18-9-303 applies to a person who is not a sender or intended receiver, and in-person eavesdropping under § 18-9-304 applies to a person not visibly present. An outsider generally needs consent from at least one sender, receiver, or principal party and cannot record to commit or aid an unlawful act. Wiretapping and eavesdropping are class 2 misdemeanors, punishable by up to 120 days and/or $750.
Ask Ezel about your situation
This is the general rule in Colorado. Ezel applies current Colorado law to your specific facts and answers with citations to the statutes.
| Governing law and covered recording | C.R.S. §§ 18-9-303 and 18-9-304 separately prohibit outsider wiretapping of telephone, telegraph, or electronic communications and outsider eavesdropping on a conversation or discussion; both also reach knowing use or disclosure of unlawfully obtained contents |
|---|---|
| Whose consent a participant needs | Ordinary participant recording falls outside the core offenses: § 18-9-303 begins with a person who is not a sender or intended receiver, and § 18-9-304 begins with a person not visibly present. An outsider generally needs at least one sender's, receiver's, or principal party's consent |
| Privacy, confidentiality, or secrecy trigger | Section 18-9-304 uses 'conversation or discussion' without an express privacy qualifier. Although § 18-9-301(8) defines 'oral communication' through a justified belief against interception, the eavesdropping offense does not use that defined term |
| Telephone, in-person, and electronic coverage | Section 18-9-303 names telephone, telegraph, and electronic communications; § 18-9-304 covers an in-person conversation or discussion. The electronic definition includes transmitted sounds/data affecting interstate or foreign commerce and excludes wire and oral communications (§ 18-9-301(3.3)) |
| How consent or notice is given | Participant status itself removes an ordinary sender/intended receiver or visibly present participant from the offense wording. For an outsider, the statutes require consent of either sender/receiver or at least one principal party but prescribe no writing, script, warning tone, or express timing formula |
| Major participant-facing exceptions | Affirmative defenses include news-media tools at a public and newsworthy event; security or business devices on the user's own premises with reasonable public notice; provider operations; public-access electronic/radio communications; and harmful-interference tracing (§ 18-9-305) |
| Criminal classification and penalty | Wiretapping and eavesdropping are class 2 misdemeanors (§§ 18-9-303(2), 18-9-304(2)): for an offense committed on or after March 1, 2022, up to 120 days' imprisonment, a fine up to $750, or both (§ 18-1.3-501(1)(a.5)) |
| Civil remedy and evidence effect | Sections 18-9-302–305 create no express private damages measure; § 18-9-305(4) instead supplies a good-faith-order defense to civil actions brought under other Colorado law. A narrow cordless-phone rule permits specified prosecutorial use only with reliability and corroborating probable cause (§ 18-9-305(4.9)) |
| Interstate and federal boundary | Federal law permits participant or one-party-consented recording unless its purpose is criminal or tortious (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)); Colorado's participant exclusions and outsider unlawful-purpose clauses are structured differently. Choice of law remains fact-specific, so all-party consent is the prudent interstate baseline |
Compare this rule across all 50 states + DC →
Requirements one by one
Governing law and covered recording
Colorado divides the problem by medium. C.R.S. § 18-9-303 covers outsider recording of telephone, telegraph, or electronic communications; § 18-9-304 covers outsider recording of a conversation or discussion. Each section also prohibits knowing use or disclosure when the person knows or has reason to know the information was obtained in violation of that section.
Whose consent a participant needs
The operative text excludes an ordinary participant before reaching consent. The call offense begins, “Any person not a sender or intended receiver,” while the conversation offense begins, “Any person not visibly present.” An outsider violates the knowing-recording paragraph when neither a sender nor receiver consented to a call, or when none of the principal parties consented to an in-person recording.
Privacy, confidentiality, or secrecy trigger
The eavesdropping offense speaks broadly of a “conversation or discussion” and does not expressly require confidentiality or a reasonable privacy expectation. Section 18-9-301(8) does define an “oral communication” through a justified belief against interception, but § 18-9-304 does not use that defined phrase. Do not silently import the definition into the different operative wording.
Telephone, in-person, and electronic coverage
Section 18-9-303 expressly names telephone, telegraph, and electronic communications. “Electronic communication” includes transmitted sounds or data affecting interstate or foreign commerce, but excludes wire and oral communications (§ 18-9-301(3.3)). The visibly-present rule in § 18-9-304 applies to an in-person conversation or discussion.
How consent or notice is given
For the ordinary participant, sender/intended-receiver or visible-presence status—not an announcement—is what removes the conduct from the offense wording. For an outsider, the statutes say “consent” but do not prescribe written consent, a spoken script, a warning tone, or a special duration. The separate own-premises business/security defense requires “reasonable notice” to the public (§ 18-9-305(1)).
Major participant-facing exceptions
C.R.S. § 18-9-305 makes its listed exceptions affirmative defenses. The most relevant are accepted news-media tools for a public and newsworthy event, security or business devices on one's own premises after reasonable public notice, public-access electronic and radio communications, provider operations, and harmful-interference tracing.
Criminal classification and penalty
Both wiretapping and eavesdropping are class 2 misdemeanors. Under C.R.S. § 18-1.3-501(1)(a.5), the maximum for a post-March 1, 2022 class 2 misdemeanor is 120 days' imprisonment, a $750 fine, or both.
Civil remedy and evidence effect
Sections 18-9-302 through 18-9-305 do not state a private statutory-damages amount. Instead, § 18-9-305(4) makes good-faith reliance on a court order or the specified surveillance article a complete defense to a civil action brought under another Colorado law as well as to the recording offenses.
The chapter's express private-recording evidence rule is narrow: § 18-9-305(4.9) permits prosecutors to use a third-party cordless-phone recording for another crime only when they reasonably believe it reliable and have separate probable cause based on corroborating evidence. It does not create a general admissibility rule for every participant recording.
Interstate and federal boundary
Federal § 2511(2)(d) generally allows a party or someone with one party's prior consent to intercept, but withdraws that permission for a criminal or tortious purpose. Colorado instead frames its state offenses around a nonparticipant or non-visible recorder and separately prohibits an outsider's unlawful-purpose recording. These texts do not decide multistate choice of law; all-party consent remains the prudent baseline.
What trips people up
“One-party consent” understates the participant rule. The Colorado offenses first exclude a sender or intended receiver and a person visibly present. The consent clauses principally describe when an outsider may record.
The in-person offense does not say “private conversation.” Section 18-9-304 uses “conversation or discussion.” The privacy-qualified “oral communication” definition appears elsewhere but is not the term chosen in that offense.
Consent does not erase the outsider's unlawful-purpose paragraph. Sections 18-9-303(1)(b) and 18-9-304(1)(b) separately address a nonparticipant who records to commit or aid an unlawful act.
Common questions
Can a person standing outside the room record if one speaker agrees? Section 18-9-304(1)(a) allows the consent of at least one principal party to defeat that paragraph, but the outsider must still avoid the separate unlawful-purpose conduct in paragraph (b).
Does a business warning sign matter? It can. Section 18-9-305(1) provides an affirmative defense for security or business devices on the user's own premises when reasonable notice is given to the public.
Statutes and sources
- C.R.S. § 18-9-301 — communication and interception definitions. https://olls.info/crs/crs2025-title-18.pdf (accessed 2026-07-20)
- C.R.S. § 18-9-303 — wiretapping offense and classification. https://olls.info/crs/crs2025-title-18.pdf (accessed 2026-07-20)
- C.R.S. § 18-9-304 — eavesdropping offense and classification. https://olls.info/crs/crs2025-title-18.pdf (accessed 2026-07-20)
- C.R.S. § 18-9-305 — affirmative defenses and narrow cordless-recording evidence rule. https://olls.info/crs/crs2025-title-18.pdf (accessed 2026-07-20)
- C.R.S. § 18-1.3-501 — class 2 misdemeanor maximum. https://olls.info/crs/crs2025-title-18.pdf (accessed 2026-07-20)
- Colorado General Assembly, 2025 CRS titles — official source page and currency statement. https://content.leg.colorado.gov/agencies/office-legislative-legal-services/2025-crs-titles-download (accessed 2026-07-20)
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) — federal private-participant rule. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section2511&num=0&edition=prelim (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 Colorado handles this in general. Ezel applies current Colorado law to your facts and answers your specific question, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.