Arizona recording consent law for interviews: one-party, bordered by two stricter states

Arizona is a one-party consent state. Its statute, A.R.S. § 13-3005, makes it a class 5 felony to intercept a call "to which he is not a party," or a conversation "at which he is not present," without a party's consent, and § 13-3012(9) exempts any interception made "with the consent of a party to the communication or a person who is present during the communication." An interviewer on the call can record or transcribe it under Arizona law. What makes Arizona different is its neighbors: California requires all-party consent, and Nevada treats phone calls as all-party, so a large share of Arizona's cross-border hiring touches a stricter rule.

To check your state against the candidate's, use the consent checker.

This page covers Arizona's unusual statutory structure, penalties and the civil claim, how each interview format fits, calls into California and Nevada, and a consent line to read aloud.

What the statute says

Most one-party states copy the federal pattern: a broad ban, then an exception for parties. Arizona writes the party rule into the offense itself. Under § 13-3005(A), a person is guilty of a class 5 felony who:

1. "Intentionally intercepts a wire or electronic communication to which he is not a party, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of either a sender or receiver thereof."
2. "Intentionally intercepts a conversation or discussion at which he is not present, or aids, authorizes, employs, procures or permits another to so do, without the consent of a party to such conversation or discussion."
3. Intentionally intercepts the deliberations of a jury.

Section 13-3012 then lists exemptions. Paragraph 9 covers "the interception of any wire, electronic or oral communication by any person, if the interception is effected with the consent of a party to the communication or a person who is present during the communication." Arizona's text does not contain the criminal or tortious purpose limit found in the federal statute. Federal law still applies in Arizona, though, so recording to harm someone remains off limits.

The definitions in § 13-3001 follow the federal model:

• Intercept means "the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical or other device." Speech-to-text tools acquire contents, so transcription is covered.
• Oral communication means "a spoken communication that is uttered by a person who exhibits an expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying the expectation."
• Electronic communication includes "signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data or intelligence" sent by wire, radio or similar systems, which is where video calls fall.

Penalties and the civil claim

• Criminal. A violation of § 13-3005(A) is a class 5 felony. For a first offense, A.R.S. § 13-702(D) sets a presumptive term of 1.5 years, within a range of 0.5 years (mitigated) to 2.5 years (aggravated).
• Civil. A.R.S. § 12-731 lets a person whose communication is "intentionally intercepted, disclosed or used" in violation of the wiretap chapter recover equitable relief, damages equal to the greatest of actual damages plus the violator's profits, "one hundred dollars a day for each day of the violation," or "ten thousand dollars," plus punitive damages in appropriate cases and reasonable attorney fees.
• Deadline. The civil action must start within one year after the plaintiff first has a reasonable opportunity to discover the violation (§ 12-731(B)).

Where Arizona's rule does not protect a hiring team

How the rule applies to interview formats

Calls into California and Nevada

Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) matches Arizona's one-party rule, but it is a floor, not a shield. Arizona's two western neighbors are stricter:

• California. Penal Code § 632 requires all parties' consent to record a confidential communication, and § 632.7 requires it for calls involving a cell or cordless phone whether or not they are confidential. California's Supreme Court applied California law to a firm's recordings, made by its Georgia employees, of calls with California clients in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006). See California call recording law for recruiters.
• Nevada. In-person conversations are one-party, but phone calls are treated as all-party; see Nevada recording consent law for interviews.

Arizona employers hiring in Southern California or Las Vegas, and California candidates relocating to Phoenix or Tucson, are routine. A process that relies on Arizona's rule fails on exactly those calls. The general approach is in recording calls across state lines.

What it means for recording or transcribing an interview

1. Be on the call, or have a participant's consent first. Arizona's offense is aimed at people outside the conversation.
2. Treat transcription as interception. The definition covers "aural or other acquisition of the contents."
3. Watch devices in interview rooms. A laptop left recording after you step out, while the candidate talks with the next interviewer, is capturing a conversation you are no longer present at.
4. Share summaries, not files. Disclosure and use carry civil liability with a $10,000 floor.
5. AI scoring is separate. Check AI hiring laws by state for the candidate's location.

Candidates who record, and the "person present" wording

Arizona's exemption covers consent by "a party to the communication or a person who is present during the communication." A candidate in Arizona who is in the interview may therefore record it without asking you, and Arizona law treats that the same way as your own recording. Expect that any interview could exist on someone's phone, keep questions consistent and job-related, and give the same answer to every candidate who asks whether they may record.

The "person present" wording also cuts the other way inside your team. Someone who sits in on an in-person panel is present, and can consent to a recording of it. Someone who was invited but did not attend is not. If capture on a shared call will be started by a colleague, agree it before the interview and make sure that colleague is actually in the room or on the call. When in doubt, the candidate's spoken yes at the start settles it for every state involved.

A consent line for Arizona interviews

"Before we start, I'd like to [record / transcribe] this interview so
my notes for the [role] position are accurate. Only [who] will see it,
and it's deleted after [period]. If you'd rather I didn't, just say so
and I'll take notes by hand; it won't affect your application. Is that
OK with you?"

[Clear yes: start capture. No, or anything unclear: capture stays off.]

Arizona does not require this line for a call you are on, but California and Nevada may, and a candidate's location is often unclear. More versions are in the interview recording consent script.

Checklist for Arizona hiring teams

1. Ask every candidate before capture starts.
2. Treat calls with California candidates, and phone calls with Nevada candidates, as all-party.
3. Only participants set up recording or transcription.
4. Stop capture when you leave an in-person interview room.
5. Do not forward or quote a recording unless you know how it was made.
6. Keep a dated written policy.

Arizona is listed with the other one-party states in one-party consent states.