Recording Law for Streamers & Creators in New Mexico

New Mexico’s wiretap law (NMSA 1978, Section 30-12-1) only makes it a misdemeanor to secretly intercept telegraph or telephone communications transmitted over wires or cables. The law prohibits tapping or connecting to a 'telegraph or telephone line, wire, cable or instrument' without consent, intercepting a 'message, communication or report intended for another by telegraph or telephone' without consent, or otherwise interfering with telegraph or telephone communications. But the same law does not apply to in-person conversations at all. In State v. Hogervorst (1977-NMCA-057), New Mexico’s Court of Appeals ruled that the wiretap law is limited to telephone and telegraph messages, not face-to-face talks, because every prohibited act in the statute is textually tied to telegraph or telephone infrastructure. This means you can legally record yourself and others in public or private spaces in New Mexico without asking for consent, as long as you’re not secretly tapping into a phone line or intercepting a telegraph or telephone communication.

The wiretap law only applies to telegraph or telephone communications sent over 'telegraph or telephone lines, wires, cables, or instruments.' That includes traditional phone calls and telegraph transmissions, but it does not extend beyond those expressly mentioned in the statute. If you’re recording a telephone call between yourself and someone else, New Mexico law allows it as long as at least one person in the call knows it’s being recorded, because the statute exempts interceptions 'by a person acting under color of law in the investigation of a crime, where such person is a party to the communication, or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception, monitoring or recording.' But if you’re recording an in-person conversation—whether in public or private—New Mexico’s wiretap law does not restrict you at all. The law simply doesn’t cover face-to-face talks, even if you record them without telling the other person.

A federal appeals court has ruled that the First Amendment protects your right to record on-duty police officers performing their official duties in public. In Irizarry v. Yehia (38 F.4th 1282, 10th Cir. 2022), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit—which covers New Mexico—found that a police officer was denied qualified immunity because the right to record police in public was clearly established at the time. This means you can legally record police interactions in New Mexico without their permission, as long as you’re not interfering with their work or breaking other laws. New Mexico’s own wiretap law doesn’t restrict this either, since it doesn’t apply to in-person recording.

Under New Mexico law, recording video in public spaces—like streets, parks, or stores—is not restricted by the wiretap statute. The law only covers telegraph or telephone communications, not video or photos. The statute contains no reference to oral communications, images, or video, and under Hogervorst does not reach in-person interactions at all—so silent video-only recording of a real-world encounter is not addressed or restricted by this statute. The only exception is if you’re secretly recording someone in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, like a bathroom or changing room—that’s covered by New Mexico’s voyeurism statute (NMSA 1978, Section 30-9-20), which criminalizes 'photographing or filming a person's intimate areas without consent where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy,' not by the wiretap statute. Otherwise, you can record video in public without worrying about New Mexico’s wiretap law.

New Mexico’s wiretap law only creates legal trouble if you secretly intercept a telegraph or telephone communication without consent. For example, if you secretly record a telephone call between two other people without either of their knowledge, that could be a misdemeanor under NMSA 1978, Section 30-12-1. The law prohibits tapping or connecting to a 'telegraph or telephone line, wire, cable or instrument' without consent, intercepting a 'message, communication or report intended for another by telegraph or telephone' without consent, or otherwise interfering with telegraph or telephone communications. But if you’re recording an in-person conversation or video in public, the wiretap law doesn’t apply at all. Other laws, such as New Mexico’s voyeurism statute (NMSA 1978, Section 30-9-20) or general privacy torts, might still apply in some situations, but those are separate from the wiretap statute.

Say you’re live-streaming from a public park in Albuquerque, talking to your viewers while people walk by. A stranger walks into frame and starts arguing with you. You keep recording, including their voice, without asking permission. Under New Mexico law, this is legal. The wiretap law doesn’t apply because you’re not recording a telegraph or telephone communication—you’re recording an in-person conversation in public. Even if the person didn’t know they were being recorded, New Mexico’s courts have ruled that the wiretap law doesn’t cover this situation because it is limited to telegraph and telephone communications. The same goes if you’re filming a protest, a street performer, or any other public event—New Mexico law doesn’t require consent for in-person recording.

While New Mexico’s wiretap law does not restrict in-person recording, other legal rules may still apply depending on the circumstances. For instance, New Mexico’s voyeurism statute (NMSA 1978, Section 30-9-20) criminalizes 'photographing or filming a person's intimate areas without consent where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy,' such as in a restroom or changing room. Additionally, general privacy torts like intrusion upon seclusion could theoretically be implicated in some fact patterns, though these are separate from the wiretap statute. The statute’s limited scope means that for wearable-device use cases involving in-person disputes, interactions, or police encounters, the practical effect is even more permissive than one-party consent, since no consent at all is required—only that the conduct falls outside the statute’s telegraph or telephone framework.