Guides
Is It Legal to Record a Conversation in New Hampshire?
Key facts
- ·New Hampshire requires every person in a conversation to consent before you can legally record their words, whether the conversation is in person or over the phone; RSA 570-A:2 makes it a Class B felony to willfully intercept a telecommunication or oral communication without the consent of all parties.
- ·Recording video without audio is allowed under New Hampshire’s wiretapping law—only the audio part triggers the all-party consent rule; RSA 644:9 separately restricts silent video in private places regardless of audio.
- ·There is no general exception for recording conversations in your own home; the all-party consent rule applies the same as in public, except for the narrow home telephone extension carve-out recognized in State v. Telles, 139 N.H. 344, 653 A.2d 554 (1995).
- ·Loud speech in public that is easily overheard by bystanders may not qualify as a protected 'oral communication' under RSA 570-A:1, II, but this is not definitively settled by New Hampshire’s highest court.
- ·You have a First Amendment right to openly record police officers performing their public duties in New Hampshire, according to controlling First Circuit precedent including Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) and Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011).
- ·Unauthorized recording is a Class B felony, and you can be sued for damages under RSA 570-A:11, which provides liquidated damages of the greater of $100 per day or $1,000 per day, plus punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and a good-faith defense.
- ·The only narrow home exception is for listening in on a call made on your own home telephone extension—no other home conversations are exempt; State v. Telles, 139 N.H. 344, 653 A.2d 554 (1995) interprets RSA 570-A:1, IV(a)(1) as creating an absolute exception for household members using ordinary home extensions.
New Hampshire’s All-Party Consent Rule for Audio Recordings
New Hampshire makes it a crime to record any conversation—whether in person or over the phone—without the consent of every person taking part. The law defines this as intercepting an “oral communication” or “telecommunication” without the consent of all parties. An “oral communication” is any spoken words where the speaker has a reasonable expectation the conversation won’t be intercepted, such as a private talk in an office or a quiet conversation at home. Phone calls and electronic communications are treated as “telecommunications,” which carry the same all-party consent requirement with no exceptions. Breaking this rule is a Class B felony, and you can also face a civil lawsuit for damages. This rule applies the same way whether you’re recording a business meeting, a family discussion, or a phone call—everyone involved must agree first. RSA 570-A:2 makes it a Class B felony to willfully intercept a telecommunication or oral communication without the consent of all parties. RSA 570-A:11 provides a private right of action with liquidated damages of the greater of $100 per day or $1,000 per day, plus punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and a good-faith defense.
Video-Only Recording vs. Adding Audio
If you record video without capturing any audio, New Hampshire’s wiretapping law does not apply. The state’s rules only restrict intercepting the actual spoken words or electronic signals of a conversation. As soon as your device captures audio—even if it’s just background noise—you fall under the all-party consent rule. For example, a security camera filming a store entrance is fine, but a bodycam recording audio during a private conversation without consent breaks the law. The only exception is a narrow carve-out for ordinary home telephone extensions: RSA 570-A:1, IV(a)(1) excludes from the definition of a prohibited device any telephone or telegraph equipment furnished to the subscriber by a communications carrier and used in the ordinary course of business, and State v. Telles, 139 N.H. 344, 653 A.2d 554 (1995), interprets this provision as creating an absolute exception for extension telephones used in the home by the user or subscriber—meaning a household member may lawfully listen in on another household member’s call via an ordinary home extension without consent. Silent video-only recording is not regulated by RSA 570-A, but RSA 644:9 separately restricts silent video in private places such as bathrooms, bedrooms, or locker rooms regardless of audio.
Recording in Your Own Home
New Hampshire does not give you a free pass to secretly record conversations just because they happen in your home. The all-party consent rule applies inside your house the same as it does in public. The only exception is for a very specific situation: if someone uses a regular home telephone extension to listen in on a call made on that line, New Hampshire courts have said that is lawful without consent. But recording other conversations at home—like a family argument or a guest’s private chat—still requires everyone’s permission. There is no general “home exception” in the law. RSA 570-A:2’s all-party consent requirement applies inside a person’s home the same as anywhere else—recording a conversation at home without every participant’s consent is a violation just as it would be in public. The narrow carve-out in RSA 570-A:1, IV(a)(1) for telephone/telegraph equipment furnished by a carrier and used in the ordinary course of business, as interpreted by State v. Telles, 139 N.H. 344, 653 A.2d 554 (1995), does not create a general right to secretly record household conversations.
Recording in Public Places and Loud Speech
Recording in public is not automatically allowed, but New Hampshire’s law focuses on whether the speaker had a reasonable expectation their words wouldn’t be intercepted. If someone speaks loudly enough that bystanders can hear them without any device—like shouting on a street or yelling in a park—courts have treated that speech as not protected by the wiretapping law, so recording such loud, public speech may not require consent under New Hampshire’s statute. However, this point is not settled by a New Hampshire Supreme Court decision, so it’s safest to assume the all-party rule applies unless the speech is clearly loud and exposed to bystanders. The statute’s trigger is not a public vs. private place distinction per se, but whether the speaker had a reasonable expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation (RSA 570-A:1, II). RSA 570-A:1, II defines an ‘oral communication’ as ‘any verbal communication uttered by a person who has a reasonable expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying such expectation.’ No New Hampshire Supreme Court opinion squarely applying this reasonable-expectation clause to a concrete loud/public speech fact pattern could be located, so this remains an unsettled interpretive question.
Recording Police Officers on Duty
New Hampshire courts have ruled that openly recording police officers while they perform their public duties is protected by the First Amendment. This protection comes from federal case law, not a special exception in the state’s wiretapping statute. The key is to record openly, not secretly, and avoid interfering with the officer’s work or getting too close. A federal appeals court case from New Hampshire—Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014)—confirmed that citizens have the right to film police in public during a traffic stop, affirming the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the officers, and building on Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), the seminal First Circuit case establishing the First Amendment right to openly record police performing duties in public. Always keep a safe distance and don’t obstruct the officer’s duties. Gericke arose directly from a Weare, New Hampshire traffic stop where the plaintiff was charged in part under RSA 570-A, and the First Circuit held it was clearly established that the First Amendment protects a citizen’s right to film police carrying out duties in public.
Penalties and What You Can Do If Someone Records You
Recording someone without their consent in New Hampshire can lead to criminal charges and a civil lawsuit. A violation is a Class B felony under RSA 570-A:2, and the person you recorded can sue you for damages under RSA 570-A:11. The civil remedy includes liquidated damages of the greater of $100 per day or $1,000 per day, plus punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and a good-faith defense if you reasonably believed you had consent. If you discover someone recorded you without permission, you can file a civil lawsuit to stop the use of the recording and seek damages. The law also allows you to sue for any harm caused by the unauthorized interception. RSA 570-A:11 provides a private right of action with liquidated damages of the greater of $100 per day or $1,000 per day, plus punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and a good-faith defense. The statute also deems a violation an unfair or deceptive act or practice under RSA 358-A:2, enforceable by the Attorney General.
The full picture
Every layer of the law, not just the headline rule
Statute · Penalty: mixed
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. (RSA) Chapter 570-A, "Wiretapping and Eavesdropping" — primarily RSA 570-A:2 (Interception and Disclosure of Telecommunication or Oral Communications Prohibited), with definitions in RSA 570-A:1 and civil remedy in RSA 570-A:11. Confirmed current via the official New Hampshire General Court site (gc.nh.gov), which reflects the statute as amended through the 2017 body-camera/dash-camera amendments (subsections (j), (l), (m)) — no indication of more recent substantive change to the consent framework.
In-person vs. phone & video calls
No differential treatment. RSA 570-A:2, I bars interception of "any telecommunication or oral communication" without the consent of ALL parties. In-person speech is covered as "oral communication" (RSA 570-A:1, II — a verbal utterance made under circumstances where the speaker has a reasonable expectation it will not be intercepted); phone/electronic calls are covered as "telecommunication" (RSA 570-A:1, I — transfer of information through a communications common carrier's facilities). Both categories require all-party consent under the same subsection; NH imposes the stricter all-party standard uniformly rather than splitting in-person vs. electronic communications.
Recording in public
The statute's trigger is not "public vs. private place" per se but whether the speaker had "a reasonable expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying such expectation" (RSA 570-A:1, II, defining "oral communication"). If words are spoken loudly enough to be audible to bystanders without a device (e.g., yelling on a street, audible to neighbors with the naked ear), courts have treated that speech as falling outside the definition of protected "oral communication," so recording it isn't an "interception" requiring consent — secondary sources describe a case involving loud shouting overheard by neighbors reaching this conclusion, but I could not independently verify a specific NH Supreme Court citation for that exact fact pattern from a primary source, so flag that particular sub-point as medium confidence. Separately, State v. McLellan, 144 N.H. 602 / 744 A.2d 611 (1999) (Fourth Amendment/Part I, Art. 19 search-and-seizure context, not RSA 570-A itself) held a school custodian had no reasonable expectation of privacy against video surveillance in a classroom he had access to — illustrative of NH's general privacy-expectation analysis for video, though it is a search-and-seizure case, not a wiretap-statute case.
Recording at home
No broad "own home" exception exists. RSA 570-A:2's all-party consent requirement applies inside a person's home the same as anywhere else — recording a conversation at home without every participant's consent is a violation just as it would be in public. RSA 570-A:1, IV(a)(1) provides a narrow carve-out from the definition of a prohibited "device": it excludes any telephone/telegraph equipment furnished to the subscriber or user by a communication carrier and used in the ordinary course of business -- the enacted text is business-oriented and is NOT textually limited to "the home"; the common "extension telephone in the home" reading is an interpretive gloss from case law (State v. Telles, 139 N.H. 344 (1995)), not the statute itself — it does not create a general right to secretly record household conversations. This makes NH stricter than states that grant a special home-recording privilege.
Recording the police
RSA 570-A:2 itself does not contain a blanket exception saying "citizens may record on-duty police without consent" — its law-enforcement carve-outs (subsections II(d), (j), (l), (m)) instead authorize officers' own recording equipment (undercover interception with AG authorization, dash-cam audio during traffic stops, TASER-cam audio, body-worn cameras under RSA 105-D). For a private citizen recording an officer: because an officer performing public duties in a public place is generally treated as lacking a reasonable expectation that their on-duty statements are private, such recording (including audio) generally falls outside the "oral communication" definition and outside RSA 570-A's consent requirement in the first place — though this specific state-law point rests on general reasonable-expectation analysis rather than a codified statutory exception, so treat it as reasoned inference rather than a black-letter carve-out. Independently and more robustly, there is controlling First Amendment case law: New Hampshire is within the First Circuit (covering ME, MA, NH, RI, PR). Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) — arising directly from a New Hampshire traffic stop in Weare, NH, where the plaintiff was charged in part under RSA 570-A — held it was "clearly established" that the First Amendment protects a citizen's right to film police carrying out duties in public absent a reasonable restriction, affirming the district court's denial of qualified immunity to the officers. This builds on Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) (Boston, MA), the seminal First Circuit case establishing the First Amendment right to openly record police performing duties in public. Best-practice guidance derived from these cases: record openly rather than covertly, do not physically interfere with the officer's duties, and keep a safe distance.
Video-only capture (no audio)
Silent video-only recording (no audio) is NOT restricted by RSA 570-A. The statute's operative terms — "intercept," "oral communication," and "telecommunication" — are defined around aural/verbal content (RSA 570-A:1, I, II, III), so a camera capturing only images with no audio track does not constitute an "interception" under this chapter, and no consent is required under RSA 570-A regardless of setting. The moment a recording device captures audio (even incidentally, e.g., a wearable that records ambient sound along with video), RSA 570-A:2's all-party consent requirement attaches to the audio track. Note: a separate, distinct statute — RSA 644:9 (unlawful photographing/video-taping in a private place, e.g., bathrooms, bedrooms, locker rooms) — can independently restrict silent video in places of heightened privacy expectation regardless of audio; that statute is not part of Chapter 570-A and is generally not implicated by recording disputes/interactions/police in public or semi-public settings, which is this use case.
What counts as a “private” conversation →
New Hampshire's gate is built directly into the statutory definition of the protected communication type, not a separate multi-factor case-law test. RSA 570-A:1, II defines "oral communication" as: "Any verbal communication uttered by a person who has a reasonable expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying such expectation." (Verbatim — independently re-confirmed via a fresh WebFetch of the official NH General Court statute page, gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/lviii/570-a/570-a-1.htm, this session; matches the existing row's quotation exactly.) This is a single-prong, Katz-style reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test applied to the "circumstances" of the utterance (e.g., volume, setting, audience present) — it is NOT a bright-line "no one but the participants present" rule, and it is NOT a statute drafted so broadly that no gate exists at all. "Telecommunication" (RSA 570-A:1, I: "the transfer of any form of information in whole or in part through the facilities of a communications common carrier" — also independently re-verified verbatim this session) has no such expectation qualifier — phone/electronic calls are covered categorically, with no gate, while in-person speech only becomes a protected "oral communication" if it clears the reasonable-expectation test. No NH Supreme Court opinion squarely applying this reasonable-expectation clause to a concrete fact pattern (e.g., loud/public speech) could be located via primary source during this verification pass either — WebSearch was budget-exhausted for this session before a query could run, and WebFetch attempts against CourtListener and Casetext were blocked (403/access-denied) on every try, mirroring the constraints the original researcher reported. This is a pre-existing, already-flagged gap in the existing row (labeled medium confidence on that specific sub-point) — it was neither resolved nor contradicted by this pass, and the hedge should remain as-is. A New Hampshire in-person communication must first qualify as an "oral communication" — one "uttered by a person who has a reasonable expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying such expectation" (RSA 570-A:1, II) — before RSA 570-A:2's consent rule applies at all. If it clears that threshold, New Hampshire requires the consent of every party to the communication (all-party state, RSA 570-A:2, I, confirmed all-party via the statute's "consent of all parties to the communication" operative language). If it does not clear that threshold (e.g., speech loud enough, or made under circumstances, that negate any justified expectation of non-interception), RSA 570-A imposes no consent requirement on anyone for that utterance, regardless of NH's otherwise-strict all-party rule — because unqualifying speech is simply not an "oral communication" the statute reaches. Telecommunications/phone calls under RSA 570-A:1, I carry no such gate — they are all-party-consent-covered categorically, with no reasonable-expectation qualifier in that definition. This is internally consistent with the existing row's consent_type ("all_party") and communication_split_notes (no in-person/electronic split in the consent standard itself — the split is instead in whether the gate applies before that standard is reached).
New Hampshire Privacy Act (comprehensive consumer data privacy law; biometric data is regulated as a category of "sensitive data" — this is NOT a dedicated BIPA-style biometric statute) — RSA 507-H:1(IV) defines "biometric data" to expressly include a "voiceprint": "data generated by automatic measurements of an individual's biological characteristics, such as a fingerprint, a voiceprint, eye retinas, irises or other unique biological patterns[,] or characteristics that are used to identify a specific individual." The statute excludes a mere audio or video recording from that definition unless data derived from it is generated to identify a specific individual — which is exactly what voice-enrollment/speaker-identification does, so a stored voiceprint template falls squarely inside the definition. RSA 507-H:1(XXVIII) folds biometric data into "sensitive data" only when "the processing of genetic or biometric data [is] for the purpose of uniquely identifying an individual" — again, squarely the live.law use case (distinguishing wearer from bystanders). Operative duty: RSA 507-H:6, I(d) — a controller shall "not process sensitive data concerning a consumer without obtaining the consumer's consent" (with a COPPA carve-out for known children). "Consent" is separately defined at 507-H:1(VII) as "a clear affirmative act signifying a consumer's freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous agreement," which may be a written statement (including electronic) or other unambiguous affirmative action, but excludes agreement buried in general terms-of-use, hovering/pausing/closing content, or consent obtained via "dark patterns." So: real, specific, opt-in consent is required before capturing/processing the voiceprint — not merely a disclosure or opt-out. In addition, RSA 507-H:8, I requires the controller to conduct and document a data protection assessment for processing activities presenting a heightened risk of harm, including sensitive-data processing (i.e., the voiceprint-enrollment feature), weighing benefits vs. risks; this assessment must be produced to the AG on request but is otherwise confidential. Standard privacy-notice, revocation, and data-minimization duties in 507-H:6 also apply generally. Two important limiters: (1) the whole chapter only applies to a "controller" that meets a scale threshold — RSA 507-H:2: processing personal data of ≥35,000 unique NH consumers in a year (excluding data controlled or processed solely for completing a payment transaction), or ≥10,000 unique consumers with >25% of gross revenue derived from the sale of personal data — so a small/early-stage live.law deployment in NH might fall outside the statute's scope entirely; (2) there is no BIPA-style mandate for a written, publicly posted retention/destruction schedule, no fixed maximum retention period, and no per-violation statutory damages — the consent + assessment duties above are the whole of what's required, and the only consequence of getting it wrong is AG action (with a mandatory-then-discretionary cure period) under the UDAP statute, not private suits or per-scan damages.
Attorney ethics (ABA Formal Op. 01-422) →
No New Hampshire authority — bar ethics opinion or court decision — squarely addresses whether a lawyer's undisclosed recording of a conversation violates Rule 8.4(c). Independent verification reproduced the researcher's negative finding: NHBA's complete indexed list of ethics opinions/articles (1999-present) and all available decade archives (1970-79, 1980-89, 1990-99, 2000-07) contain no opinion on recording, taping, secret recording, eavesdropping, or wiretapping, and no opinion referencing or paralleling ABA Formal Opinion 01-422. General web searches likewise surface nothing NH-specific beyond the general Rule 8.4(c) text (verbatim Model Rule language, no comment on recording). Because New Hampshire has not adopted its own position endorsing or rejecting ABA Formal Opinion 01-422 (June 24, 2001 — confirmed via direct read of the full opinion text: it withdrew Formal Opinion 337 (1974) and held that undisclosed recording "does not necessarily violate the Model Rules," subject to compliance with local consent law and no false denial that recording is occurring), the correct classification is "no direct authority found," not an affirmative "follows" or "rejects." A New Hampshire lawyer facing this question would likely treat 01-422 as persuasive, non-binding national guidance, layered onto NH's own general Rule 8.4(c) prohibition on dishonesty/misrepresentation. Important interaction for this dataset: New Hampshire is an all-party-consent state under RSA 570-A:1/570-A:2 for both in-person and telecommunication "oral communications" — independently confirmed via the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press's state guide ("It is unlawful to record either an in-person or telephone conversation or disclose its contents without the consent of all parties," citing RSA 570-A:1, 570-A:2) and via ABA Formal Opinion 01-422 itself, whose footnote 30 lists New Hampshire among twelve all-party-consent states as of a 1998 survey. This means the fact pattern 01-422 is usually invoked for — a lawyer lawfully recording without disclosure in a one-party-consent jurisdiction — has narrow practical application inside NH itself: undisclosed recording of a person physically present in, or calling into, New Hampshire is independently a crime/tort under RSA 570-A regardless of what 01-422 says about Rule 8.4(c). The 01-422-type ethics question mainly arises for an NH-licensed lawyer recording a conversation governed by a one-party-consent state's law.
Can you personally sue over a violation?
Yes — this state gives a private right of action, not just criminal/regulatory enforcement.
Sources
- https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/lviii/570-a/570-a-1.htm — RSA 570-A:1 Definitions (official NH General Court site)
- https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/lviii/570-a/570-a-2.htm — RSA 570-A:2 Interception and Disclosure Prohibited (official NH General Court site)
- https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/lviii/570-a/570-a-11.htm — RSA 570-A:11 Civil Remedies (official NH General Court site)
- https://gc.nh.gov/rsa/html/LVIII/570-A/570-A-mrg.htm — RSA Chapter 570-A full section index (official NH General Court site)
- https://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/12-2326P-01A.pdf — Gericke v. Begin, No. 12-2326 (1st Cir. May 23, 2014), official First Circuit opinion
- https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/12-2326/12-2326-2014-05-23.html — Gericke v. Begin case summary (used only as a secondary cross-check on the primary CA1 opinion)
- https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nh-supreme-court/1473744.html — State v. McLellan, 744 A.2d 611 (N.H. 1999) (secondary reproduction of NH Supreme Court opinion, used only as a lead/cross-check)
- https://law.justia.com/codes/new-hampshire/title-lviii/chapter-570-a/section-570-a-2/ — used only as a secondary lead to locate/cross-check the primary statute text, not as sole source for any fact reported
- https://courts-state-nh-us.libguides.com/c.php?g=896700&p=6450077 — NH Law Library research guide on RSA 570-A, used only as a secondary lead
Common situations
Specific questions people actually ask
Can I record as a guest in someone else's home?
It depends on the specifics of the moment — New Hampshire doesn't give a guest the same clear leeway a homeowner gets, so this is closer to a case-by-case call than a fixed yes or no.
Read the full explainer →What if I'm on a call with someone in another state?
Play it safe: if either state on the call requires everyone's okay to record, treat the whole call that way — don't assume New Hampshire's rule is the only one that matters just because you're the one wearing the glasses.
Read the full explainer →If it's legal to record, can it still be used against me later?
Usually, yes. Being legal to record and being protected from a future court case are two different questions — a legal recording can generally still be obtained by the other side later. That's especially true the moment a third person is present or on the line — even one extra listener can be enough to strip away legal protection here. Recording your own conversation with your own attorney is a separate, more protected situation, but almost everything else — a landlord, a police officer, a family member — isn't automatically off-limits to opposing counsel just because it was legal to capture.
Read the full explainer →Frequently asked questions
Can I record a conversation with my coworker in New Hampshire if I tell them I’m recording?
No. New Hampshire requires the consent of every person in the conversation—not just the person you’re speaking with. Even if you announce you’re recording, you still need the agreement of every person taking part before you press record. RSA 570-A:2 makes it a crime to willfully intercept an oral communication or telecommunication without the consent of all parties.
I’m a journalist. Can I secretly record a public official’s speech at a town meeting?
It depends. If the official is speaking loudly enough that bystanders can hear without devices, courts have treated that speech as not protected by the wiretapping law, so recording may not require consent. But if the speech is quiet or the setting suggests privacy, the all-party consent rule applies. When in doubt, get consent or record openly. RSA 570-A:1, II defines an ‘oral communication’ as requiring a reasonable expectation of non-interception; no New Hampshire Supreme Court decision confirms that loud public speech loses this protection.
I live in New Hampshire and want to install a doorbell camera with audio outside my house. Is that legal?
It depends on what the camera captures. If the audio picks up conversations on your property where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy—like a private backyard—you would need everyone’s consent to record. If the camera only captures loud speech in a public area, it may not require consent. Always consider your neighbors’ privacy too. Silent video-only recording is not regulated by RSA 570-A, but RSA 644:9 separately restricts silent video in private places regardless of audio.
A police officer told me I can’t record them during a traffic stop in New Hampshire. Is that true?
No. Federal case law—including a New Hampshire case called Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014)—confirms you have a First Amendment right to openly record police officers performing their public duties. You can record as long as you don’t interfere with their work or get too close. The officer’s statement is not legally correct. Gericke arose from a Weare, NH traffic stop and the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the officers, holding it was clearly established that the First Amendment protects filming police in public.
What happens if I record someone without consent in New Hampshire and they sue me?
They can sue you for damages under RSA 570-A:11, which provides liquidated damages of the greater of $100 per day or $1,000 per day, plus punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and a good-faith defense if you reasonably believed you had consent. This is separate from any criminal charges, which can include a Class B felony under RSA 570-A:2. RSA 570-A:11 also deems a violation an unfair or deceptive act or practice under RSA 358-A:2, enforceable by the Attorney General.
Want a lawyer already lined up before you need one?
live.law connects your smartglasses to a real attorney, live. Join the waitlist to be first in line.
Join the waitlistMore about recording law in New Hampshire
live.law is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice. This page is general information, not legal advice for your specific situation — for that, talk to a licensed attorney in your state.