Recording Law for Employers & Businesses in New Hampshire

New Hampshire makes it a crime to intercept any "oral communication" or "telecommunication" without the consent of all parties to the communication. 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 ... any telecommunication or oral communication.' An "oral communication" is defined 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' (RSA 570-A:1, II). "Telecommunication" is defined as 'the transfer of any form of information in whole or in part through the facilities of a communications common carrier' (RSA 570-A:1, I), and phone calls and electronic messages fall within this definition. If you record audio without everyone’s consent, you can face criminal charges under RSA 570-A:2 and civil liability under RSA 570-A:11, which authorizes damages, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages.

If your camera records only video with no audio, New Hampshire law does not restrict it. The wiretapping statute RSA 570-A focuses on audio interception, so a silent video feed is not covered. However, if the device captures any audio—even incidentally—the all-party consent rule applies immediately. Separately, RSA 644:9 restricts video recording in private places like bathrooms or locker rooms, but that law is unrelated to routine workplace or customer-service interactions in public or semi-public areas.

The law does not use a simple public-versus-private location test. Instead, it asks 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 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.' For example, a loud argument shouted in a crowded store aisle may not qualify as a protected "oral communication" because the speaker’s volume and setting suggest no expectation of privacy. But a quiet conversation in a back office or a private phone call does qualify. If the speaker’s words are directed only to the people nearby and not broadcast, assume the all-party consent rule applies.

New Hampshire is within the First Circuit, which has held it is clearly established that citizens have the right to openly film police officers performing public duties. 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 that the First Amendment protects a citizen's right to film police carrying out duties in public absent a reasonable restriction. Best practice: record openly, do not interfere with the officer’s duties, and keep a safe distance. Covert recording of police may still implicate other legal considerations, so open recording is the safer approach.

Recording without all-party consent is generally a Class B felony under RSA 570-A:2, I, while a party-to-the-call interception done without required Attorney General approval is a misdemeanor under RSA 570-A:2, I-a. Civil lawsuits are also possible under RSA 570-A:11, which allows affected parties to sue for liquidated damages of $100 per day or $1,000 (whichever is greater), punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The law includes a good-faith defense, but relying on it is risky. Penalties apply whether the recording happens at work, in a store, or over the phone. Always get clear consent before recording audio of any conversation involving employees or customers.

New Hampshire’s wiretapping law contains a few limited exceptions that do not override the all-party consent rule but clarify specific scenarios. Under RSA 570-A:1, IV(a)(1), ordinary extension telephones furnished by a communications carrier and used in the ordinary course of business are excluded from the definition of a prohibited device; State v. Telles, 139 N.H. 344, 653 A.2d 554 (N.H. 1995) interprets this provision as creating an absolute exception for extension telephones used in the home by the user or subscriber, allowing a household member to lawfully eavesdrop on another household member’s phone call via an ordinary home extension without consent. This exception is narrow and does not extend to general secret recording of household conversations. Additionally, law enforcement officers are authorized to use specific recording equipment under statutory carve-outs: RSA 570-A:2, II(d) covers undercover interception with Attorney General authorization, RSA 570-A:2, I(j) authorizes dash-cam audio during traffic stops, RSA 570-A:2, I(l) covers TASER-cam audio, and RSA 570-A:2, I(m) governs body-worn cameras under RSA 105-D. These provisions do not create a blanket exception for citizens recording police.

Imagine a retail chain equipping store staff with smartglasses that can capture video and audio. Under New Hampshire law, silent video-only recording is fine. But if the glasses also pick up customer speech, the store must get consent from every customer before enabling audio capture. One way to comply is to post clear signs saying audio recording may occur and train staff to ask customers if they object before turning on audio. If a customer refuses, the staff member can continue with video only or disable recording entirely. This approach keeps the store within the law while still documenting interactions.