Utah
Utah Dashcam Laws
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 15, 2026. · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Dashcams are legal in Utah and may record audio under the state's one-party consent rule, Utah Code 77-23a-4, because the vehicle operator is a consenting party. Mount the camera behind the rearview mirror or on the dashboard to comply with windshield obstruction law 41-6a-1635.
Dashcams are legal in Utah. There is no statute specifically prohibiting dashboard cameras. Utah's windshield obstruction law (41-6a-1635) restricts items that block the driver's view, so proper mounting is important.
This guide covers mounting rules, audio recording, evidence use, commercial fleet dashcams, and privacy considerations.
Dashcam Legality
Dashcams are legal for personal vehicles, commercial vehicles, rideshare vehicles, and recreational vehicles. Mount on the dashboard or behind the rearview mirror to avoid windshield obstruction issues.
Audio Recording
Audio follows one-party consent under 77-23a-4. As the vehicle operator, you are present and consenting. Audio of conversations in your car, including during traffic stops, is legal.
Dashcam Footage as Evidence
Dashcam footage is regularly admitted in Utah courts for traffic accidents (establishing fault), DUI cases, hit-and-run identification, road rage, insurance claims, and vandalism documentation. Footage must be authenticated, relevant, and unaltered.
Commercial Fleet Dashcams
Employers can install dashcams including cabin-facing cameras. Notify drivers through employment policies. The FMCSA does not prohibit dashcams.
Parking Mode
Video-only parking mode is generally permissible. Audio recording when you are absent does not involve one-party consent to conversations.
More Utah Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
More Utah Recording Topics
More Utah Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Are dashcams legal in Utah?
Yes. No Utah law prohibits dashcams. Mount the camera so it does not obstruct your view of the road, consistent with windshield obstruction law 41-6a-1635.
Where should I mount my dashcam in Utah?
Mount on the dashboard or behind the rearview mirror. Utah law restricts windshield obstructions that impede the driver's view.
Can my dashcam record audio in Utah?
Yes. As the vehicle operator, you consent under one-party consent law (77-23a-4). Audio of conversations in your vehicle is legal.
Can I use dashcam footage as evidence in Utah?
Yes. Dashcam footage is regularly admitted in Utah courts for traffic cases, insurance claims, and criminal proceedings. Keep footage unaltered.
Do Utah insurance companies offer dashcam discounts?
Some insurers offer discounts or benefits. Check with your provider. Dashcam footage speeds up claims processing.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Audit pass: no accuracy errors found. Utah-specific citations (77-23a-4, 76-9-702.7, le.utah.gov links) verified correct.
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Utah Code, Title 77: Criminal Procedure
§ 77-23a-4Offenses -- Criminal and civil -- Lawful interception.In forcecited in 19 of our articles
(1) (a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter, any person who violates Subsection (1)(b) is guilty of an offense and is subject to punishment under Subsection (10), or when applicable, the person is subject to civil action under Subsection (11). (b) A person commits a violation of this subsection who: (i) intentionally or knowingly intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept any wire, electronic, or oral communication; (ii) intentionally or knowingly uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication, when the device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication or when the device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of the communication; (iii) intentionally or knowingly discloses or endeavors to disclose to any other person the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire,…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Wood (2023) held a jail's recording of inmate calls fell within the consent exception in section 77-23a-4(7)(a) because the inmate impliedly consented by using phones he was told were monitored. The Quarasan Group, Inc. v. Nozani, LLC (2020) dismissed an eavesdropping claim once Utah law governed and did not bar the recording.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Wood (Utah Supreme Court 2023, 532 P.3d 997)✓A jail recorded an inmate's calls to his wife after warning him by handbook, placard and a message before each call; the Utah Supreme Court held he impliedly consented, so the interception fell within section 77-23a-4(7)(a) and suppression was denied.
- State v. Draughon (Court of Appeals of Utah 2026, 2026 UT App 52)“…rties to the call—consented to the call being recorded. See Utah Code §§ 77-23a-4(7)(b), -7. He claims Counsel should hav…”
- United States v. Maynard (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2010, 615 F.3d 544)“…ined by the police acting pursuant to a warrant. See, e.g., Utah Code Ann. §§ 77-23a-4, 77-23a-7, 77-23a-15.5; Minn Stat §§ 62…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Utah Code, Title 41: Motor Vehicles
§ 41-6a-1635Windshields and windows -- Tinting -- Obstructions reducing visibility -- Wipers -- Prohibitions.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1) Except as provided in Subsections (2), (3), and (4) a person may not operate a motor vehicle with: (a) a windshield that allows less than 70% light transmittance; (b) a front side window that allows less than 35% light transmittance, with no more than a 5% variance observed by a peace officer metering the light transmittance; (c) any windshield or window that is composed of, covered by, or treated with any material or component that presents a metallic or mirrored appearance; (d) any sign, poster, or other nontransparent material on the windshield or side windows of the motor vehicle except: (i) a certificate or other paper required to be so displayed by law; or (ii) the vehicle's identification number displayed or etched in accordance with rules made by the department under Section 41-6a-1601; or (e) any debris, frost, or other substance that materially obstructs the operator's view. (2) (a) A person may not operate a motor vehicle with an object or device hanging or mounted in a manner that materially obstructs the operator's view.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-08 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at le.utah.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Harvey v. Butcher (District Court, D. Utah 2023)“…de windows that “allow less than 43% light transmittance.” Utah Code § 41-6a-1635(1)(b) (2015). Officer Simpson measured…”
- Linin v. Neff (District Court, D. Utah 2021)“…ff saw that Linin had a cracked windshield in violation of Utah Code § 41-6A-1635. Neff informed Linin of the reasons for…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 418 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4 -- Interception of Communications(le.utah.gov).gov
- Utah Code Ann. 41-6a-1635 -- Windshield Obstructions(le.utah.gov).gov
- FMCSA -- Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration(fmcsa.dot.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 -- Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)