Washington video recording laws require consent from every person in a conversation before you can capture audio, whether you’re recording a phone call, an in-person discussion, or a video that picks up voices. Silent video is a different question and generally follows looser rules. The core statute is RCW 9.73.030, and getting it wrong is a gross misdemeanor with up to 364 days in jail, plus civil damages and an unusable recording.
The All-Party Consent Rule
RCW 9.73.030 makes it unlawful to intercept or record any private communication or private conversation without first getting consent from everyone involved.1Washington State Legislature. RCW 9.73.030 Intercepting, Recording, or Divulging Private Communication – Consent Required – Exceptions “Private communication” covers phone calls, electronic messages, and similar transmissions. “Private conversation” covers face-to-face discussions. Both require every participant’s consent, and the rule applies whether you’re part of the conversation or a bystander with a phone.
This puts Washington in the minority of states. Federal law and most states allow recording if just one party (including you) agrees. If you’re used to that standard, or you’ve moved here from a one-party state, the habit of quietly hitting record can become a crime.
Silent Video Versus Video With Audio
This is where most people get tripped up. RCW 9.73.030 prohibits recording private communications and conversations, both of which involve spoken words or transmitted messages. A camera that captures only visual footage, with no audio, falls outside the statute. Silent video surveillance does not trigger Washington’s all-party consent requirement.
Video-only recording is not unlimited, though. Washington’s voyeurism statute, RCW 9A.44.115, separately prohibits filming someone without their knowledge in a place where they’d reasonably expect privacy, when the recording is done to gratify sexual desire. The statute defines a place with a reasonable expectation of privacy as one where a person would expect to undress without being filmed, or where they’d reasonably feel safe from surveillance. Bathrooms, bedrooms, locker rooms, and fitting rooms are the standard examples.2Washington State Legislature. Revised Code of Washington 9A.44.115 – Voyeurism
For anyone thinking about a doorbell camera, nanny cam, or home security system, the practical rule is straightforward. A video-only camera in common areas of your own home is generally lawful. Add a microphone and you’re back under RCW 9.73.030, needing every recorded person’s consent. Many people solve this by disabling the microphone or setting cameras to video-only mode.
How Consent Actually Works
You don’t need a signed form. Under RCW 9.73.030(3), consent is considered obtained when one party announces to everyone else, in any reasonably effective way, that the conversation is about to be recorded.1Washington State Legislature. RCW 9.73.030 Intercepting, Recording, or Divulging Private Communication – Consent Required – Exceptions If you’re making a recording, the announcement itself needs to be captured on the recording. Silence or continued participation after a clear announcement is generally treated as implied consent. Every person in the conversation must hear the announcement before you start.
A verbal “I’m recording this call” at the start of a phone conversation, followed by the other person continuing to talk, meets the standard. So does the automated beep or notice that many business systems play.
When One Party’s Consent Is Enough
The all-party rule has narrow exceptions. RCW 9.73.030(2) allows recording with only one party’s consent when the communication involves:
- Reports of fires, medical emergencies, crimes, or disasters
- Threats of extortion, blackmail, or bodily harm
- Anonymous calls, repeated calls, or calls at extremely inconvenient hours
- Communications involving a hostage-taker or barricaded individual
If someone is calling to threaten you, or making harassing calls, you can record without their permission.1Washington State Legislature. RCW 9.73.030 Intercepting, Recording, or Divulging Private Communication – Consent Required – Exceptions Outside these specific circumstances, the all-party rule applies.
What Counts as a “Private” Conversation
The consent requirement only applies to private conversations and communications. Washington courts evaluate privacy case by case, looking at whether the speakers showed an intent to keep the conversation private, the location, whether third parties were present or could overhear, and the subject matter.
Location matters but doesn’t decide the question by itself. A quiet personal discussion between two people on a park bench can still be private even though it happens outdoors. On the flip side, an openly conducted commercial transaction inside a home is not private just because of the walls around it. The test is whether the participants took steps to exclude others and whether a reasonable person would expect the conversation to stay between them.
Recording in Public and Recording Police
People in public places like streets, sidewalks, and parks generally don’t have a reasonable expectation that their activities are private. You can record video in these areas without permission. The First Amendment protects your right to photograph or film anything in plain view when you’re lawfully present in a public space, including law enforcement officers performing their duties.
An officer can’t lawfully confiscate your phone or arrest you solely for recording them in public. The right to record doesn’t let you interfere with police operations, cross into restricted areas, or trespass on private property to get a better angle.
Federal buildings have their own rules. Under 41 CFR 102-74.420, visitors to federal property can generally take photographs and video in entrances, lobbies, corridors, and auditoriums for news purposes, unless security rules or a court order prohibit it. Commercial photography in space occupied by a tenant agency requires written permission from an authorized official of that agency.3eCFR. 41 CFR 102-74.420 – What Is the Policy Concerning Photographs for News, Advertising, or Commercial Purposes
Remember that even in public, capturing audio of a private conversation can still trigger the consent statute. Filming a rally is fine; pointing a shotgun mic at two people having a hushed argument on a bench is a different matter.
Home Cameras, Workplaces, and Rentals
Businesses routinely run security cameras in retail floors, parking lots, and building entrances. Video-only surveillance in these common areas is generally permissible because people in open commercial spaces have limited privacy expectations. Cameras cross the line when they appear in restrooms, changing rooms, or closed break rooms, which can run into the voyeurism statute.2Washington State Legislature. Revised Code of Washington 9A.44.115 – Voyeurism
Employers who monitor their workforce should inform employees about surveillance. Washington’s all-party consent rule means any workplace system with audio capability requires everyone’s knowledge and agreement. The safest practice is posted notice of cameras, no audio, and no cameras in private areas.
Landlords face similar limits. Tenants keep full privacy rights inside their leased spaces, and a landlord cannot install cameras inside a rental unit. Cameras covering shared exterior areas like parking lots and hallways are more defensible, but pointing one at a tenant’s door or windows invites a privacy claim. Keeping any landlord-installed system video-only avoids the audio consent problem.
Sharing a Recording Is a Separate Question
A recording that was legal to make can still be illegal to share. RCW 9.73.030 restricts not just the act of recording but also disclosure of unlawfully captured communications.1Washington State Legislature. RCW 9.73.030 Intercepting, Recording, or Divulging Private Communication – Consent Required – Exceptions Passing along a recording someone else made illegally, or posting it online, exposes you to the same legal risks as the person who captured it.
Washington separately criminalizes non-consensual disclosure of intimate images under RCW 9A.86.010. A person commits this offense by knowingly sharing an intimate image when they obtained it under circumstances where a reasonable person would understand it was meant to stay private, and the person depicted hasn’t consented to sharing. A first offense is a gross misdemeanor; a second or subsequent offense is a class C felony.4Washington State Legislature. Revised Code of Washington 9A.86.010 – Disclosing Intimate Images This applies even when the original recording was fully consensual. A video made with someone’s participation can still be illegal to distribute if that person never agreed to others seeing it.
Even a lawfully made recording can create civil liability if sharing it reveals private facts the subject reasonably expected to stay confidential, or if editing makes the video portray someone falsely. The right to record and the right to broadcast are two separate questions.
Criminal Penalties and Inadmissibility
Unlawfully recording a private conversation or communication is a gross misdemeanor under RCW 9.73.080.5Washington State Legislature. Revised Code of Washington 9.73.080 – Penalties Washington’s default gross misdemeanor sentence allows up to 364 days in jail and a fine of up to $5,000.6Washington State Legislature. RCW 9.92.020 Punishment of Gross Misdemeanor When Not Fixed by Statute
Beyond the criminal charge, any recording obtained in violation of RCW 9.73.030 is inadmissible in Washington courts, both civil and criminal, unless the person whose rights were violated gives permission to use it.7Washington State Legislature. Chapter 9.73 RCW Privacy, Violating Right Of – Section 9.73.050 If you secretly record a conversation hoping to use it in a custody dispute or business lawsuit, the recording gets excluded and you face criminal liability for making it.
Civil Damages on Top
Victims of illegal recordings can also pursue civil damages under RCW 9.73.060. The statute entitles an injured person to actual damages, including compensation for mental pain and suffering caused by the violation. Attorney’s fees and court costs may also be recoverable.8Washington State Legislature. RCW 9.73.060 Violating Right of Privacy – Civil Action – Liability for Damages Civil suits run independently of criminal prosecution, so one illegal recording can produce both.
Federal law adds another layer. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2520, anyone whose communications were illegally intercepted can sue for the greater of actual damages plus the violator’s profits, or statutory damages of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, whichever is larger. The court can also award reasonable attorney’s fees.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 2520 – Recovery of Civil Damages Authorized A single illegal recording can trigger state and federal liability at the same time.
Interstate Calls and the Federal Floor
The federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, requires only one party’s consent.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 2511 – Interception and Disclosure of Wire, Oral, or Electronic Communications Prohibited That’s a floor, not a ceiling. States can impose stricter rules, and Washington does.
This creates a trap for interstate calls. If you’re in Washington recording a phone call with someone in a one-party state, Washington’s rule still applies to you. The other person’s state allowing the recording doesn’t help in a Washington prosecution. When a call crosses state lines, follow the stricter state’s rule, which in any call involving a Washington participant means getting everyone’s consent.