Recording Law for Recording in Public in New Hampshire

New Hampshire makes it illegal to record someone’s spoken words without the consent of every person taking part in the conversation. This is known as an "all-party consent" state, and it applies whether the conversation happens in a private home, a public park, or a store. The law is found in New Hampshire’s wiretapping statute, RSA 570-A:2, which says you commit a crime if you "intercept" an "oral communication" without the consent of all parties. The statute defines an "oral communication" as any spoken words a person expects won’t be overheard or recorded under circumstances justifying that expectation. If someone speaks loudly enough that bystanders can hear without any device, courts have treated that speech as falling outside the definition of protected "oral communication," so recording it isn’t an "interception" requiring consent — though no New Hampshire Supreme Court decision squarely confirms this fact pattern. In practice, the safest approach is to assume you need everyone’s okay before recording any spoken conversation in New Hampshire. The only carve-out is for ordinary home telephone extensions used by the people living there, as recognized by State v. Telles, 139 N.H. 344, 653 A.2d 554 (N.H. 1995), which the New Hampshire Supreme Court has described as an "absolute exception for extension telephones used in the home by the user or subscriber."

The key to whether New Hampshire’s wiretapping law applies is whether the speaker had a "reasonable expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying such expectation." This phrase comes directly from RSA 570-A:1, II, the state’s definition of an "oral communication." If someone speaks softly in a quiet corner of a café, they likely have that expectation. If someone shouts a message across a crowded street where others can hear without any device, courts have treated that speech as falling outside the definition of protected "oral communication," so recording it isn’t an "interception" requiring consent — though no New Hampshire Supreme Court decision squarely confirms this fact pattern. The law also covers phone calls and other electronic communications under RSA 570-A:1, I, but those carry no reasonable-expectation test — all calls require consent from everyone on the line.

If you record only video with no sound, New Hampshire’s wiretapping law does not apply at all. The statute focuses on audio interception, so a silent camera pointed at a public event or a busy sidewalk is not restricted by RSA 570-A. However, a separate law, RSA 644:9, makes it illegal to secretly record or photograph someone in a private place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, like a bathroom or changing room. That law is not part of the wiretapping chapter, and it generally does not come into play when recording interactions in public areas.

You have the right to record on-duty police officers performing their duties in public in New Hampshire. This protection comes from First Amendment case law, not the state’s wiretapping statute. 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, ruling it was "clearly established" that openly recording police in public is protected speech; the case arose from a traffic stop in Weare, New Hampshire. The court’s decision means officers cannot arrest someone for recording them in public just because New Hampshire has an all-party consent law. Just keep your distance, don’t interfere with police work, and record openly rather than secretly. This right is grounded in Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), the seminal First Circuit precedent establishing the First Amendment right to openly record police performing duties in public.

Recording someone’s private conversation without their consent in New Hampshire is a crime. The law makes it a Class B felony to intercept an oral communication or telecommunication without all parties’ consent 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. You can also face a civil lawsuit under RSA 570-A:11, which lets the person you recorded sue for liquidated damages of $100 per day or $1,000 (whichever is greater), punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and other relief. The law does include a good-faith defense at RSA 570-A:11, IV, so if you honestly thought you had consent or the speech wasn’t protected, a court may not penalize you. RSA 570-A:11, II also requires the court to consider the defendant’s financial resources when awarding damages, and RSA 570-A:11, V ties violations to the state’s unfair/deceptive-practices statute, RSA 358-A, enforced by the Attorney General. But the risk is real, and the penalties are serious, so it’s best to get consent before recording any spoken conversation.

New Hampshire’s wiretapping statute contains several narrow exceptions that do not create broad privileges to record without consent. Under RSA 570-A:1, IV(a)(1), ordinary telephone or telegraph equipment furnished to a subscriber by a communications carrier and used in the ordinary course of business is excluded from the definition of a prohibited "device" — a provision the New Hampshire Supreme Court has interpreted in State v. Telles, 139 N.H. 344, 653 A.2d 554 (N.H. 1995), 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 limited to the specific context of extension telephones used in the home and does not extend to other household conversations or settings. Separately, RSA 570-A:2, II(d), (j), (l), and (m) authorize law-enforcement officers’ own recording equipment under specific conditions, including undercover interception with Attorney General authorization, dash-cam audio during traffic stops, TASER-cam audio, and body-worn cameras under RSA 105-D. These provisions do not create a general exception for private citizens recording conversations.

The location of a conversation does not determine whether New Hampshire’s wiretapping law applies; what matters is whether the speaker had a reasonable expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under the circumstances. Inside a person’s home, the all-party consent requirement applies 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: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 only narrow carve-out is the extension-telephone exception recognized in State v. Telles, 139 N.H. 344, 653 A.2d 554 (N.H. 1995). In public places, if words are spoken loudly enough to be audible to bystanders without a device, courts have treated that speech as falling outside the definition of protected "oral communication," so recording it isn’t an "interception" requiring consent — though no New Hampshire Supreme Court decision squarely confirms this fact pattern. RSA 644:9, a separate statute, independently restricts silent video recording in places like bathrooms, bedrooms, and locker rooms where there is a heightened privacy expectation, but this statute is not part of Chapter 570-A and generally does not apply to recording disputes involving interactions or police in public or semi-public settings.