Is Utah a one-party consent state?

Utah Code Ann. § 77-23a-4 holds the offence, with the consent exception at (7)(b) and penalties at (10). Wire, electronic and oral are covered, so in-person is inside.

An expectation of privacy is an element for oral conversations, and RCFP states public conversations need no consent. That definitional language is RCFP-sourced, because the FindLaw page for § 77-23a-4 did not reproduce § 77-23a-3.

A third-degree felony under § 77-23a-4(10)(a). § 77-23a-4(10)(b) reduces first offences involving unencrypted radio communications not made for commercial purposes to a class A or B misdemeanor. We did not source the sentencing range.

The private right of action is tiered, and most sources report only one tier. § 77-23a-11 gives, for a first violation involving certain communications, the greater of actual damages or statutory damages of not less than $50 nor more than $500; for a repeat violation of that kind, the greater of actual damages or $100 to $1,000; and in other cases, "statutory damages of $100 a day for each day of violation, or $10,000, whichever is greater", plus actual damages and the violator's profits. Punitive damages in appropriate cases, plus fees and costs, with a two-year limitations period. RCFP states only the $100-per-day-or-$10,000 figure, which is not wrong but is incomplete.

Being one of the people in the conversation answers the question for Utah. It does not answer it for whoever is on the other end. No rule settles which state's law applies when the participants are in different places, more than one may apply at once, and courts have reached opposite results on comparable facts. If anyone on the call might be in an all-party state, the safe posture is theirs rather than yours. The general problem is on the US overview.

Nothing in Utah law requires you to say anything, which is a different thing from it being a good idea. The reason to announce it anyway is the person on the other end of the call, who may be somewhere stricter, and the reason to ask rather than tell is that it puts an answer on the record instead of an assumption.

I'm recording this for notes, stored on my machine only. Any objection?

Then leave a beat. Longer versions, and what to do when someone says no, are on telling people you're recording.

Earkeep records continuously and announces itself to nobody: no bot in the participant list, no banner on anyone else's screen. In a one-party state that is legally unremarkable, and it is still the reason nobody in the room knows unless you say so.

The controls exist for when somebody would rather you didn't. A pause from the live edge releases the microphone and the system audio stream, so your operating system's own recording indicator goes dark and the person who asked can watch it happen rather than take your word for it. A meeting on a connected calendar can be marked never-record. And a stretch of the day, or a saved meeting with its transcript, can be purged: the lines come out of the file on your own disk and nothing is written in their place, with no server copy to reconcile against because there is no server.

None of that makes a recording lawful anywhere, and the audio never leaving your device is not an answer to a consent statute. It is a good answer to "where does this go", which is usually the question the room actually has.

• RCFP, Reporter's Recording Guide: Utah
• Utah Code Ann. § 77-23a-4
• § 77-23a-11

• US recording laws, state by state: the federal baseline, the cross-border problem, and all 51 jurisdictions.
• Telling people you're recording: the scripts, and the three ways to stop.
• Private by design: why the audio never leaves your computer.

This page is legal information, not legal advice. It summarises statutes and cases rather than replacing them, and we are not lawyers. If the answer matters, ask someone who can be held to their answer.