Recording Law for Recording at Home in New Hampshire

New Hampshire makes it a crime to secretly record any conversation without the consent of every person taking part. This rule applies whether the conversation happens in your living room, someone else’s kitchen, or a public park. The law treats conversations inside a home the same as those outside it. RSA 570-A:2, I provides that a person is guilty of a class B felony if, without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person wilfully intercepts a communication. That means if you record a private talk at home—even a heated argument—you must tell everyone involved or risk breaking the law. The same rule covers phone calls made or received in a home. There is no special exception for your own house or for visiting someone else’s. The only narrow carve-out is for ordinary home telephone extensions: RSA 570-A:1, IV(a)(1) excludes from the definition of a prohibited 'device' any telephone equipment furnished by a carrier and used in the ordinary course of business, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court has interpreted this provision as creating an 'absolute exception for extension telephones used in the home by the user or subscriber' (State v. Telles, 139 N.H. 344, 653 A.2d 554 (1995)). This carve-out permits a household member to listen in on another’s call without consent, but it does not allow secretly recording the call itself.

New Hampshire’s wiretapping law protects 'oral communications'—in-person speech—only when the speaker has a 'reasonable expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying such expectation' (RSA 570-A:1, II). In plain terms, if someone speaks loudly enough that others could overhear without help, or in a place where others are naturally present, a court may decide they had no reasonable expectation of privacy for that moment. But if the conversation is private—spoken quietly or in a place where others aren’t expected—then it’s protected and requires everyone’s consent to record. Phone calls are always protected under a separate definition—RSA 570-A:1, I defines 'telecommunication' as 'the transfer of any form of information in whole or in part through the facilities of a communications common carrier'—so recording one without consent is illegal regardless of where the call is made or received. The law does not draw a line between public and private spaces for the consent rule itself—it turns on whether the speaker had a reasonable expectation of privacy in what they said. While secondary sources describe a case involving loud shouting overheard by neighbors reaching the conclusion that such speech falls outside the definition of protected 'oral communication,' no New Hampshire Supreme Court decision squarely confirms this fact pattern, so this exception should be treated cautiously.

If your camera captures only images with no sound, New Hampshire’s wiretapping law does not restrict it. The statute focuses on audio interception—RSA 570-A:1, I, II, and III define 'intercept,' 'oral communication,' and 'telecommunication' around aural/verbal content—so a silent video of a conversation—whether at home or elsewhere—is not covered. As soon as the recording includes audio, however, the all-party consent rule applies. That means a doorbell camera that records audio along with video, a smartphone recording a family argument, or a wearable device capturing ambient sound with images would all require everyone’s consent to be legal. Separately, New Hampshire has a law against secretly filming people in private places like bathrooms or bedrooms—RSA 644:9—but that law is not part of the wiretapping statute and generally does not apply to ordinary conversations or interactions in living areas. Violations of RSA 570-A can result in criminal penalties and civil liability, including up to $1,000 per day for each day the recording continued, plus punitive damages and attorney’s fees.

Recording a conversation without everyone’s consent in New Hampshire can lead to serious consequences. RSA 570-A:2, I makes it a class B felony to intercept a communication without all-party consent, and RSA 570-A:2, I-a provides that a party-to-the-call interception done without required Attorney General approval is a misdemeanor, reflecting New Hampshire’s mixed penalty scheme. Victims can also sue for damages under RSA 570-A:11, which authorizes a civil cause of action with liquidated damages of $100 per day or $1,000 (whichever is greater), plus punitive damages and attorney’s fees. There is a defense if you reasonably believed you had consent, but the law puts the burden on you to get it. These penalties apply whether the recording happens in your home, someone else’s, or in public. The law also allows police to use recordings as evidence in criminal cases, which can create additional legal exposure beyond the wiretapping charge itself.

Imagine you’re having a loud argument with your roommate in your apartment. You decide to turn on your phone to record what’s said, hoping to use it later to prove your side. Because your roommate did not consent to being recorded, this is illegal under New Hampshire law. Even though it’s your home, the law requires both of you to consent before recording the conversation. If your roommate finds out and reports it, you could face criminal charges and a civil lawsuit. The only way this recording would be legal is if you told your roommate you were recording and they agreed. If the argument is so loud that neighbors could overhear without help, a court may decide the conversation wasn’t private—but that depends on the specific facts, and you shouldn’t rely on that uncertainty. New Hampshire courts have not squarely addressed this fact pattern, so the safer course is to obtain consent before recording.

New Hampshire’s strict wiretapping law does not override your First Amendment right to openly record on-duty police performing their duties in public. In Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014)—arising directly from a New Hampshire traffic stop in Weare, NH—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 a citizen's right to film police carrying out duties in public absent a reasonable restriction. This builds 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. The best practice is to record openly, keep a safe distance, and avoid physical interference. Do not secretly record police in a way that suggests you’re trying to hide it—open recording is what the law protects. This rule is separate from the wiretapping statute and applies in public places, not inside private homes.