Recording Law for Video-Only Recording in New Hampshire

New Hampshire law does not restrict recording silent video or photos that capture no audio. The state’s wiretapping statute, RSA 570-A, only applies when a device captures audio or audio-visual content with sound. Since video-only recording does not involve audio, it falls outside this law entirely. This means you can record video or take photos without worrying about New Hampshire’s all-party consent rule as long as your device does not capture any sound. The law treats video-only recording the same whether you’re indoors or outdoors, in public or in a private home. The only exception is RSA 644:9, which separately prohibits recording in private places like bathrooms or locker rooms, but that law isn’t part of the wiretapping statute and doesn’t apply to most everyday recording situations.

If your device records audio—even incidentally with video—New Hampshire’s wiretapping law, RSA 570-A:2, requires the consent of all parties to the conversation. This applies to both in-person speech and phone calls. The law defines "oral communication" as any verbal exchange where the speaker has a "reasonable expectation that the communication is not subject to interception," and it bars recording without everyone’s consent. For phone calls, the law covers "telecommunication," which includes any transfer of information through a communications carrier’s facilities. Violating this rule is a serious offense, classified as a Class B felony. The statute also allows civil lawsuits for damages, with potential penalties including $100 per day or $1,000 (whichever is greater), punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.

New Hampshire does not allow secret audio recording in your own home just because you’re present. The all-party consent rule applies the same indoors as outdoors. The only narrow exception is for extension telephones used in the home, which allows a household member to listen in on another’s phone call without consent—but this does not extend to recording conversations in person. A New Hampshire Supreme Court case, State v. Telles, 139 N.H. 344, 653 A.2d 554 (1995), confirms this limited exception and makes clear there is no broad right to secretly record household conversations. If you record someone’s voice without their consent in your home, you could face criminal charges and a civil lawsuit.

New Hampshire courts have ruled that openly recording police officers performing their official duties in public is protected by the First Amendment. 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, holding it was "clearly established" that citizens have the right to film police in public. This builds on earlier precedent, Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), which established the same right in the First Circuit. The court emphasized that recording must be done openly, without interfering with police duties, and from a safe distance. This protection exists even though New Hampshire’s wiretapping law is strict, because on-duty police in public lack a reasonable expectation of privacy for their statements.

Imagine you’re at a town parade in Concord, filming the floats and crowds with your phone’s camera set to silent mode. Your device captures only video, with no audio. Under New Hampshire law, this is unrestricted—you don’t need anyone’s permission. Now imagine you turn on your phone’s microphone to capture ambient sound along with the video. At that point, RSA 570-A:2 kicks in, and you would need the consent of everyone whose voice is recorded to stay within the law. If you’re unsure whether your recording captures audio, err on the side of caution and record silently or ask participants for consent.

New Hampshire’s wiretapping law does not use a bright-line rule for public versus private spaces. Instead, it asks whether the speaker had a "reasonable expectation that the communication is not subject to interception." This depends on the circumstances, such as how loudly someone is speaking or whether others are nearby. For example, shouting in a crowded park is less likely to be considered a protected "oral communication" than a quiet conversation in a library. However, this is a fact-specific question, and courts have not issued a definitive ruling on loud speech in public. When in doubt, treat the conversation as protected and get consent before recording.

New Hampshire’s definition of a protected "oral communication" hinges on 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). If words are spoken loudly enough to be audible to bystanders without a device—such as yelling on a street or shouting in a crowded park—courts have treated that speech as falling outside the definition of a protected "oral communication." Recording such speech does not constitute an "interception" under RSA 570-A and therefore does not require consent. Because no New Hampshire Supreme Court decision has squarely addressed this exact fact pattern, this exception should be applied narrowly and only when observable cues clearly support it. To determine whether speech loses protection, confirm both that the speech is loud enough to carry beyond the conversational circle and that bystanders are within unaided earshot without the speaker taking steps to limit exposure, such as lowering their voice, moving away, or waiting for bystanders to pass. If you cannot confirm these observable cues, treat the conversation as protected and obtain consent before recording. This approach avoids exposure under the all-party consent regime.