Recording Law for Family Law in New Hampshire

New Hampshire makes it a crime to record any conversation—whether in person or over the phone—unless every person taking part agrees first. The law says: "A person is guilty of a class B felony if, without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person: (a) Wilfully intercepts any telecommunication or oral communication." This applies whether you’re in your own home, at a custody exchange, or anywhere else. The rule covers both face-to-face talks and phone calls, with no split between in-person and electronic communication. RSA 570-A:2, I bars interception of "any telecommunication or oral communication" without the consent of all parties, and RSA 570-A:1, I and II define "telecommunication" and "oral communication" to include phone calls and in-person speech respectively. The only narrow exception is for ordinary home telephone extensions—if someone in the household uses a phone line provided by the carrier, they can legally record calls made on that line without telling the other person. RSA 570-A:1, IV(a)(1) excludes any telephone or telegraph equipment furnished to the subscriber or user by a communications carrier and used in the ordinary course of business from the definition of a prohibited device, and State v. Telles, 139 N.H. 344 (1995) confirms this creates an absolute exception for extension telephones used in the home by the user or subscriber. But that exception doesn’t apply to in-person conversations or to phone calls made on mobile devices or outside lines.

Under New Hampshire law, an "oral communication" is any spoken words where the speaker has a reasonable expectation the conversation won’t be overheard or recorded, as defined in RSA 570-A:1, II: "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." If someone speaks loudly in a public place where others can easily hear without any device, courts have treated that as not meeting the "reasonable expectation" test—but this isn’t a bright-line rule and no New Hampshire Supreme Court decision squarely confirms it for that exact fact pattern. Phone calls are always covered, with no exception for loud or angry conversations. In your home, even private talks require consent unless you’re using an ordinary home telephone extension. The law doesn’t create a general "private setting" loophole—being in your house doesn’t let you record without consent. State v. Telles, 139 N.H. 344 (1995) confirms that RSA 570-A:1, IV(a)(1) creates an absolute exception for extension telephones used in the home by the user or subscriber. RSA 570-A:1, II’s single-prong, Katz-style reasonable-expectation-of-non-interception test is applied to the circumstances of the utterance (e.g., volume, setting, audience present), not a bright-line public/private-place distinction, and RSA 570-A:1, I covers phone/electronic calls categorically with no such gate.

Recording video without sound is not restricted by New Hampshire’s wiretapping law. The statute only prohibits intercepting audio or verbal content; its operative terms—"intercept," "oral communication," and "telecommunication"—are defined around aural/verbal content in RSA 570-A:1, I, II, and 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. But the moment your device captures audio—even if it’s just background noise or an accidental recording—the all-party consent rule kicks in. For example, a body camera or smartphone that records both video and audio of a conversation in your home would violate the law unless everyone agrees. Separate privacy laws can still restrict video in places like bathrooms or bedrooms, but those aren’t part of the wiretapping statute; RSA 644:9 independently restricts unlawful photographing/video-taping in a private place regardless of audio.

Recording without consent in New Hampshire can lead to criminal charges. The base offense under RSA 570-A:2, I is a class B felony, while a party-to-the-call/one-party-consent interception done without required Attorney General approval is a misdemeanor. There’s also a civil penalty: anyone whose conversation was recorded without consent can sue for damages under RSA 570-A:11, including up to $1,000 per day of violation (whichever is greater), plus attorney’s fees and punitive damages. The law does allow a good-faith defense if you reasonably believed you had consent, but that’s a factual question a court would decide. RSA 570-A:11 also provides a liquidated-damages framework and specifies that a violation is deemed an unfair or deceptive act under RSA 358-A, enforced by the Attorney General.

Say you’re picking up your child for a scheduled visit and your ex shows up angry, making threats and refusing to hand over the child. You pull out your phone to record the exchange to document what happens. In New Hampshire, that recording would be illegal unless your ex agreed first because the speaker’s utterance must meet the statutory gate—RSA 570-A:1, II’s "reasonable expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying such expectation"—before the all-party consent requirement applies. Even if you’re in a public parking lot, the law treats the conversation as needing consent if the speaker had a reasonable expectation it wouldn’t be intercepted. If you add audio to a video of the same moment, the same rule applies. The only legal way to record would be to tell your ex you’re recording and get their agreement before starting.

New Hampshire courts have ruled that openly recording police officers performing their duties in public is protected by the First Amendment. The state’s wiretapping law doesn’t override this right when officers are acting in public view. The key is to record openly, not secretly, and avoid interfering with their work or getting too close. This is a narrow exception—it doesn’t apply to private conversations or to situations where police are off-duty or in private spaces. Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014) arose from a Weare, New Hampshire traffic stop and affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to officers who arrested a citizen for recording, holding it was clearly established that the First Amendment protects filming police carrying out duties in public. 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.

If someone speaks loudly enough that bystanders can hear without any device, a court might treat that speech as falling outside the definition of a protected "oral communication" under RSA 570-A:1, II, so recording it wouldn’t require consent. However, no New Hampshire Supreme Court decision squarely confirms this fact pattern, and the issue remains unresolved. Because the state’s threshold for what counts as protected speech turns on this point, treat capture of an in-person conversation in a public space as permitted only if you can confirm both (1) the speaker is using a raised or broadcast-style voice clearly audible beyond the immediate conversational circle without any listening aid, and (2) one or more non-participants are within ordinary, unaided earshot and the speakers take no observable step to limit that exposure for that utterance. If either condition is missing or uncertain, do not record and flag for attorney review. RSA 570-A:1, II’s single-prong, circumstances-based reasonable-expectation test applies here, not a bright-line public/private-place split.