Colorado recording consent law for interviews: wiretapping, eavesdropping and the one-party rule

Colorado is a one-party consent state, and its law is built around outsiders rather than participants. Wiretapping under C.R.S. § 18-9-303 applies to "any person not a sender or intended receiver" of a telephone or electronic communication who records it "without the consent of either a sender or a receiver." Eavesdropping under § 18-9-304 applies to "any person not visibly present during a conversation or discussion" who records it "without the consent of at least one of the principal parties." An interviewer on the call, or in the room, is outside both definitions, so recording or transcribing their own interview is not an offense under Colorado law. Both offenses are class 2 misdemeanors, a lower grade than in most states.

To compare Colorado's rule with the candidate's state, try the consent checker.

This page covers the two statutes and their definitions, penalties and civil exposure, how each interview format fits, cross-state calls, Colorado's separate AI hiring law, and a consent line.

Two statutes: wiretapping and eavesdropping

Wiretapping, § 18-9-303: calls and electronic communications

A person "not a sender or intended receiver of a telephone or telegraph communication" commits wiretapping if they, among other things:

• "Knowingly overhears, reads, takes, copies, or records a telephone, telegraph, or electronic communication without the consent of either a sender or a receiver thereof or attempts to do so";
• "Intentionally overhears, reads, takes, copies, or records" such a communication "for the purpose of committing or aiding or abetting the commission of an unlawful act"; or
• "Knowingly uses for any purpose or discloses to any person the contents" of such a communication while knowing or having reason to know it was obtained in violation of the section.

Eavesdropping, § 18-9-304: conversations

A person "not visibly present during a conversation or discussion" commits eavesdropping if they knowingly overhear or record it "without the consent of at least one of the principal parties thereto," record it for the purpose of an unlawful act, or knowingly use or disclose its contents while knowing or having reason to know it was obtained unlawfully.

The "visibly present" wording is distinctive. It means the eavesdropping offense is about hidden listeners, not about people who are openly in the conversation. An interviewer sitting across the table is visibly present; a recorder left running in a conference room after the interviewer walks out, while the candidate talks with someone else, is a different matter.

The definitions

Section 18-9-301 defines "intercept" as "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," and electronic communication as "any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature" by wire, radio or similar systems. A transcript is an acquisition of contents, and a video call is an electronic communication.

Penalties and civil exposure

• Criminal. Wiretapping and eavesdropping are each "a class 2 misdemeanor" (§§ 18-9-303(2), 18-9-304(2)). For offenses committed on or after March 1, 2022, § 18-1.3-501(1)(a.5) sets a maximum of "120 days imprisonment, not more than a seven hundred fifty dollar fine, or both."
• No civil section in Part 3. Sections 18-9-301 to 18-9-305 do not include a civil damages provision. That does not mean there is no civil exposure. The federal wiretap act gives a person whose communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of federal law a civil claim, with damages of the greater of actual damages plus profits or "$100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000" (18 U.S.C. § 2520). Privacy claims under Colorado common law may also exist; we did not research them for this page.

The lower grade is not a reason to be casual. A misdemeanor conviction, a federal claim and a candidate's complaint are all bad outcomes for a hiring team, and the fix is the same ten-second question.

How the rule applies to interview formats

Calls from Colorado to other states

Colorado's neighbors (Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah) all follow a one-party rule for participants, so regional calls rarely conflict. Denver and Boulder employers hire nationally, though, and a candidate in California, Washington, Illinois, Florida or Pennsylvania is in an all-party state.

Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d)) allows a party to record, but stricter states have applied their own law to protect people on their side of the call. In Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006), California's Supreme Court applied California law to recordings that a firm's Georgia employees made of calls with California clients. Plan for the candidate's rule. The detail is in recording calls across state lines and two-party consent states.

Colorado's AI law is a separate question

Recording law asks whether you may capture the conversation. It says nothing about using software to analyze or score a candidate. Colorado regulates that separately, and the rules have changed: our page on Colorado's AI law for employers covers what replaced the 2024 act and when it applies. A tool that records, transcribes and scores an interview needs to clear both sets of rules.

What it means for recording or transcribing an interview

1. Only participants start capture. Both Colorado offenses are aimed at outsiders; do not become one by recording an interview you are not in.
2. Transcription is capture. Treat a text-only tool the same as an audio recorder.
3. Do not reuse recordings of uncertain origin. Using or disclosing unlawfully obtained contents is part of both offenses.
4. Turn devices off when you leave the room. Once you are no longer present, a running recorder is the hidden listener § 18-9-304 describes.

When the candidate records

Colorado's rule protects candidates the same way it protects interviewers. A candidate on a phone or video interview is a sender and intended receiver, and a candidate in an in-person interview is visibly present, so neither offense reaches a candidate who records their own interview. Assume any interview with a Colorado candidate could be on a recording, and keep questions consistent and job-related. If a candidate asks to record, answer from a written policy and give everyone the same answer. If your policy says no, say so plainly at the start rather than objecting halfway through.

A consent line for Colorado interviews

"Before we begin, I'd like to [record / transcribe] this interview so
my notes for the [role] position are accurate. It's seen only by [who]
and deleted after [period]. If you'd prefer 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.]

If an AI tool will analyze the conversation, say so in the same breath. More versions are in the interview recording consent script.

Checklist for Colorado hiring teams

1. Ask every candidate before capture starts, wherever they are.
2. Only people on the call or in the room set up recording or transcription.
3. Do not forward or quote a recording unless you know how it was made.
4. Review AI scoring tools against Colorado's AI law separately.
5. Keep a dated written policy and review it yearly.

Colorado appears with the other one-party states in one-party consent states.