Utah
Utah Medical Recording Laws
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 7, 2026. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Utah patients may record their own medical appointments without informing the provider. Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4 establishes one-party consent, meaning your participation in the conversation satisfies the law. HIPAA restricts healthcare providers, not patients, so a provider citing HIPAA to stop recording is incorrect as a legal matter.
Utah patients have the legal right to record their own medical appointments. Under Utah Code Ann. 77-23a-4, you can audio record any conversation you participate in, including conversations with doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers.
This guide covers patient recording rights, HIPAA interaction, facility policies, provider recording, telehealth, and evidence use.
Patient Recording Rights
You can record doctor visits, specialist consultations, informed consent conversations, pharmacy consultations, physical therapy sessions, and insurance discussions without informing the provider. Your participation satisfies one-party consent.
Patients record for many reasons: remembering complex instructions, sharing information with caregivers, documenting informed consent, and preserving evidence.
HIPAA and Patient Recording
HIPAA restricts healthcare providers and health plans. It does not restrict patients. You can record your own visit, share it with family, and use it in legal proceedings. A provider citing HIPAA to stop patient recording is incorrect as a legal matter, though they may have a facility policy.
Providers who record patients create records subject to HIPAA protections. Patients have the right to access their own health information.
Facility Policies
Facilities can adopt recording restrictions. Violating them is not criminal but could affect your care. A simple "I'd like to record this to review later" often resolves provider concerns.
Provider Recording and Cameras
Providers can record with one-party consent. Hidden cameras in examination rooms violate Utah Code Ann. 76-12-307. Cameras in lobbies, hallways, and common areas are permitted.
Telehealth Recording
One-party consent applies to telehealth. Platform recording features typically notify both parties. If your provider is in a two-party consent state, inform them.
Medical Recordings as Evidence
Recordings support malpractice claims (informed consent, diagnosis communication), insurance disputes, and billing disputes. Standard authentication requirements apply in Utah courts.
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
Can I record my doctor in Utah?
Yes. Under one-party consent (77-23a-4), you can record any medical appointment you attend without informing the provider. HIPAA does not restrict patient recording.
Does HIPAA prevent me from recording my medical appointment?
No. HIPAA restricts providers and insurers, not patients. You can record your own visits, share recordings with family, and use them in legal proceedings.
Can a hospital ban me from recording in Utah?
A hospital can have an internal recording policy. Violating it is not a crime. They cannot have you arrested for recording your own appointment.
Can I record a telehealth appointment in Utah?
Yes. One-party consent applies to telehealth. If your provider is in a two-party consent state, inform them. Platform recording features typically notify both parties.
Can I use a medical recording in a malpractice case?
Yes. Lawfully recorded appointments are generally admissible in Utah courts. Recordings can establish what the provider communicated about risks, diagnosis, and treatment.
Updates
Updated the hidden-camera citation from a voyeurism statute repealed in 2017 to Utah's current recorded-voyeurism law, 76-12-307.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
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.
Also relied on in: Utah Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Utah AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Utah Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 422 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.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
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. 76-12-307 -- Recorded or Photographed Voyeurism(le.utah.gov).gov
- HIPAA Privacy Rule(hhs.gov).gov
- Right to Access Health Information -- HHS(hhs.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 -- Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)