Call Recording Laws in Vermont

Plain-English summary

Vermont has no general wiretap statute. The Vermont Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Geraw, 173 Vt. 350 (2002), reached the unusual conclusion that a non-consensual recording made by a participant inside someone’s home violated the Vermont Constitution’s Article 11 privacy protection. Geraw involved a confidential informant carrying a recorder into a home; the court held that the home setting created an expectation of privacy that the recording invaded.

Federal law (§ 2511(2)(d)) permits one-party recording in Vermont as elsewhere. The practical takeaway: ordinary participant recording of a phone call in Vermont is lawful, but recording made inside a home without the other party’s knowledge raises a state-constitutional question. The cautious practice in Vermont is to seek consent for in-home recordings.

Case law of note

No appellate decision in Vermont has materially reshaped the participant-recording rule in recent decades. Lower-court decisions exist but do not change the analytical framework set by the statute and by general federal precedent under § 2511.

Edge cases and special rules

In-person vs. phone. Same as telephonic; participant recording lawful but in-home recording without consent may give rise to civil claims under Geraw
Voicemail. Leaving a message creates the recording at the recipient’s direction; reviewing one’s own voicemail is not interception.
Vicarious consent. Several federal courts have recognized a parental-consent doctrine permitting a parent to consent on behalf of a minor child (Pollock v. Pollock, 154 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 1998)). State law varies; no controlling Vermont appellate decision on the question.
Law enforcement. Court-authorized intercepts are governed by a separate framework and are outside the scope of this page.
Cross-border calls. Where any participant is in an all-party state, treat the stricter rule as the safer default. See cross-border calls.

Penalties and remedies

Criminal: No specific criminal statute; common-law invasion of privacy and federal preemption.

Civil: Common-law privacy claims; intrusion upon seclusion.

Evidence: a recording made in violation of the Vermont statute is generally inadmissible in Vermont proceedings. Federal § 2515 separately bars use of unlawfully intercepted communications in federal proceedings.

Practical guidance

If you are recording an ordinary phone call: you may record without notifying the other party, but verbal consent is the safer practice if the recording may be used in a proceeding.
Suggested opening: See our consent script templates for jurisdiction-specific language.
If the other party objects: stop recording. Continued recording over an objection is a separate factual question that no consent statute helps you with.
What to keep: the date and time of the call, the parties’ phone numbers, a description of the consent given (express verbal, continued participation after notice, etc.), and the audio file itself.