Recording Law for Phone & Video Calls in New Hampshire

New Hampshire imposes an all‑party consent requirement for audio recording. RSA 570‑A:2, I makes it a crime to intercept any telecommunication or oral communication without the consent of all parties to the communication. The statute defines "telecommunication" as the transfer of information through a communications common carrier’s facilities, covering phone calls and internet‑based calls routed through carriers. It 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. Both categories require all‑party consent under the same subsection; New Hampshire imposes the stricter all‑party standard uniformly rather than splitting in‑person vs. electronic communications. Recording without everyone’s consent can trigger criminal penalties and a civil lawsuit.

RSA 570‑A:1 distinguishes between two types of protected communications. "Telecommunication" (RSA 570-A:1, I) means the transfer of information through a communications common carrier’s facilities, covering phone calls and carrier‑routed internet calls. "Oral communication" (RSA 570-A:1, II) means 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. The moment a recording device captures the audio of a call—even if video is the main focus—the all‑party consent rule applies. Silent video‑only recordings (no audio) are not restricted by RSA Chapter 570-A. But if your device captures any conversation, even incidentally, RSA 570-A:2, I’s all‑party consent requirement attaches to the audio track.

RSA 570‑A:1, II embeds a single‑prong, Katz‑style reasonable‑expectation‑of‑privacy test into the definition of a protected "oral communication." A communication is only protected—and thus subject to the all‑party consent rule—if the speaker had a reasonable expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying such expectation. If words are spoken loudly enough to be audible to bystanders without a device (for example, 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. However, no New Hampshire Supreme Court decision squarely applying this reasonable‑expectation clause to a concrete loud/public‑speech fact pattern could be located; State v. Telles, 139 N.H. 344, 653 A.2d 554 (1995) confirms only a narrow carve‑out for ordinary home extension telephones used by household members, not a general public‑speech exception. Treat this exception as narrow and consult a lawyer if you’re unsure.

You have the right to record on‑duty police officers performing their duties in public, even if you record audio. RSA 570‑A:2, I itself does not contain a blanket exception saying citizens may record on‑duty police without consent; its law‑enforcement carve‑outs authorize officers’ own recording equipment under specific conditions. 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:2, I’s consent requirement in the first place. Independently and more robustly, controlling First Amendment case law in the First Circuit—covering New Hampshire—holds it is clearly established that the First Amendment protects a citizen’s right to film police carrying out duties in public absent a reasonable restriction. In Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2014), the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to officers, affirming that the First Amendment protects such recording. Best‑practice guidance: record openly rather than covertly, do not physically interfere with the officer’s duties, and keep a safe distance. Covert recording could still raise issues under other laws or department policies.

Recording a communication without the consent of all parties is a crime under RSA 570‑A:2, I. A base violation is a Class B felony; however, a party‑to‑the‑call interception done without required Attorney General approval is a misdemeanor. You could also face a civil lawsuit under RSA 570‑A:11, which provides a private right of action for damages, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages. The law allows a good‑faith defense if you reasonably believed you had consent. The statute also caps liquidated damages at the greater of $100 per day or $1,000. A single recording mistake could lead to criminal charges and a costly lawsuit; always obtain clear consent before recording.

Imagine you’re on a weekly team video call with coworkers across New Hampshire. You want to record the meeting to share notes later. Under RSA 570‑A:2, I, you must obtain the consent of all parties before recording any audio. If someone objects, you cannot record their voice without their consent. If you record anyway, you violate RSA 570‑A:2, I. Even if you only record silent video without audio, you are not restricted by RSA Chapter 570-A. But the moment your device captures anyone’s spoken words—even incidentally—the all‑party consent rule applies.

RSA 570‑A:1, IV(a)(1) provides a narrow carve‑out from the definition of a prohibited "device": it excludes any telephone or telegraph equipment furnished to the subscriber or user by a communication carrier and used in the ordinary course of business. State v. Telles, 139 N.H. 344, 653 A.2d 554 (1995) interpreted 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 eavesdrop on another household member’s phone call via an ordinary home extension without consent. This exception is limited to telephone extensions and does not create a general right to secretly record household conversations. RSA 570‑A:2, I’s all‑party consent requirement otherwise applies inside a person’s home the same as anywhere else—recording an in‑person conversation at home without every participant’s consent is a violation just as it would be in public.