Vermont Has No Wiretap Statute and No Right-to-Record Statute Either

Two searches establish the shape of Vermont law here. Searching Titles 13 and 20 for the phrases a drafter would use, including recording a law enforcement officer, right to record, and the Nevada formula record a law enforcement activity, returns nothing, so Vermont has no standalone right of the kind California and New York enacted. Searching the same titles for wiretap, eavesdrop, intercept, and oral communication returns only 13 V.S.A. § 8108, which prohibits a law enforcement officer from using a device to intercept communication content or real time location information from a user's device, except to locate and apprehend a fugitive for whom an arrest warrant has been issued. That section is a restraint on police, not on the public. Vermont's chapter list confirms it: chapter 232, the Vermont Electronic Communication Privacy Act, is the only privacy chapter in the criminal title, and 13 V.S.A. § 8102 limits when an officer may compel protected user information from a service provider, allowing it only under a warrant, a judicially recognised exception, the specific consent of a lawful user, a good faith emergency involving danger of death or serious bodily injury, or the correctional-facility circumstance in subdivision (b)(5).

Because there is no consent statute, the question that decides most recording cases in other states, whether one or all parties must agree to the audio, does not arise in Vermont's code. The one recording offence, 13 V.S.A. § 2605, is drawn tightly. Subsection (b) reaches intentionally viewing, photographing, filming, or recording the intimate areas of another person without knowledge and consent in a place or under circumstances involving a reasonable expectation of privacy, and subsection (d) reaches surveillance or recording without consent inside a home or residence. Two subsections matter for anyone filming officers. Subsection (g)(1) says the section does not apply to a law enforcement officer conducting official law enforcement activities in accordance with State and federal law, and subsection (h) states that the section is not intended to infringe upon the freedom of the press to gather and disseminate news as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Filming an officer performing public duties on a street is neither an intimate area nor a home.

The real exposure is the impeding statute. 13 V.S.A. § 3001(a) makes it an offence to hinder an executive, judicial, law enforcement, civil, or military officer acting under the authority of the State or any subdivision, or to remove a weapon from an officer or deprive an officer of the use of a weapon, punishable by up to three years or a $500.00 fine, or both, with law enforcement officer defined by reference to § 3019, which turns on Vermont Criminal Justice Council certification under 20 V.S.A. § 2358. Note what the section does not contain. Unlike Oklahoma, Vermont wrote no proviso protecting recording inside the offence, and unlike Texas it has no explicit speech-only defence. The verb is hinders, and the offence is about interference rather than observation. A second charge to watch is disorderly conduct, 13 V.S.A. § 1026(a)(5), which reaches a person who, with intent to cause public inconvenience or annoyance or recklessly creating a risk of it, obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic, carrying up to 60 days or $500.00 for a first conviction and up to 120 days or $1,000.00 for a second. Standing back on the sidewalk keeps both out of play, as does staying off private land, since 13 V.S.A. § 3705(a)(1) makes unlawful trespass punishable by up to three months or $500.00 where notice against trespass was given by actual communication, by signs, or by placards.

On the other side of the lens, Vermont regulates its own officers' recordings. 20 V.S.A. § 2369 requires every law enforcement agency that authorises body cameras to adopt, follow, and enforce the model body camera policy established by the Vermont Criminal Justice Council, and requires every officer using one to comply with it, a duty in force since 1 January 2022. 20 V.S.A. § 2370 obliges each agency to keep a record of all final judgments and settlements paid on court claims alleging violations of rights under the Constitution of the State of Vermont, and makes those judgments, settlements, and the underlying complaints subject to public disclosure with the agency name and the amount paid. 20 V.S.A. § 2371(c)(2) puts untruthfulness, including in internal affairs and Council investigations, on the list of conduct the statewide Law Enforcement Officers' Code of Conduct must prohibit, and (c)(5) adds failure to intervene in and report another officer's unlawful use of force.

One more provision protects people who film at protests. 20 V.S.A. § 4622(b)(1) forbids a law enforcement agency from using a drone to gather or retain data on private citizens peacefully exercising their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly, and § 4622(e) makes information or evidence gathered in violation of the section inadmissible in any judicial or administrative proceeding.

Nothing in Vermont law penalises the act of recording an officer, so enforcement runs through the general offences. 00, or both, and the State must prove the person hindered an officer who was acting under the authority of the State. 00 for a second or subsequent one, and § 1026(a) requires intent to cause public inconvenience or annoyance or reckless creation of that risk. 00, and § 3705(b) requires prosecution to begin within 60 days of the offence. 00 for disclosing an image recorded in violation of the section. § 2366(e)(2) makes roadside stop data and its analysis public, so an encounter's official record can be obtained.