New Hampshire Recording Laws: All-Party Consent, Felony vs. Misdemeanor, and 2024-2025 Court Rulings

Is New Hampshire a One-Party or All-Party Consent State?

New Hampshire is an all-party consent state. It is not a one-party consent state.

Every party to a conversation -- whether in person, on the telephone, or through any electronic means -- must consent before the conversation is recorded. Under RSA 570-A:2, I, a person who willfully intercepts any telecommunication or oral communication without the consent of all parties commits a Class B felony punishable by up to 7 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $4,000.

New Hampshire's all-party consent rule distinguishes it sharply from the federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511), which allows one-party consent at the federal floor. When a recording is made in New Hampshire, the stricter state standard applies to civilians; the federal one-party default does not override it.

There is no one-party consent exemption for civilian recordings under NH law. Recording your own conversation without all other parties' consent is still illegal in New Hampshire -- it is just a lesser offense under a separate provision, RSA 570-A:2, I-a (misdemeanor rather than felony), discussed in the next section.

New Hampshire Recording Law Summary

Key Point	Answer
Consent Type	All-party consent
Can you record your own calls?	Only with consent from all parties
Participant recording (no all-party consent)	Class B misdemeanor under RSA 570-A:2, I-a
Third-party interception (no all-party consent)	Class B felony under RSA 570-A:2, I
Civil remedy	$100/day or $1,000 min. + actual + punitive + attorney fees (RSA 570-A:11)
Suppression trigger	Felony violations only (State v. Clark, 2024 N.H. 64)
Key statute	RSA 570-A:2

RSA 570-A:2: The Two-Tier Penalty Structure

New Hampshire's wiretapping and eavesdropping statute creates two distinct tiers of criminal liability based on who is recording and what mental state they bring to it.

The Felony Tier: RSA 570-A:2, I

Under RSA 570-A:2, I, a person commits a Class B felony if, without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person willfully:

• Intercepts any telecommunication or oral communication;
• Uses any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication;
• Discloses to any other person the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication knowing the information was obtained in violation of this chapter; or
• Uses the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication knowing the information was obtained in violation of this chapter.

The operative mental state here is willful. A Class B felony carries up to 7 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $4,000.

The Misdemeanor Tier: RSA 570-A:2, I-a

RSA 570-A:2, I-a creates a unique misdemeanor tier: a person is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor if, without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person knowingly intercepts a telecommunication or oral communication when the person is a party to the communication or when consent has been given by one party to the communication.

This provision means that recording your own conversation -- or a call where one person has consented but others have not -- is still illegal in New Hampshire, but the offense is a misdemeanor rather than a felony. A Class B misdemeanor carries up to 1 year imprisonment and a fine of up to $2,000.

The mental-state distinction is outcome-determinative: willfully (felony, RSA 570-A:2, I) versus knowingly (misdemeanor, RSA 570-A:2, I-a). That distinction directly controls whether a recording can be suppressed in court under the framework established by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in 2024 and 2025.

Definitions: RSA 570-A:1

RSA 570-A:1 defines "oral communication" as any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying that expectation. This expectation-of-privacy element limits RSA 570-A's reach to communications where the speaker reasonably believes they are speaking privately. Conversations in a public setting where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy fall outside the statute's protection.

Law Enforcement Exception

New Hampshire grants a separate exception to law enforcement under RSA 570-A:2, II(d), which allows an officer acting in the ordinary course of duties to record with one-party consent in investigations involving organized crime, offenses listed in RSA 570-A, or related matters, when authorized in writing by the Attorney General or a designated Assistant Attorney General. This exception applies only to sworn law enforcement officers with proper authorization -- it does not apply to private citizens.

State v. Clark (2024): When Is a Recording Suppressed?

Two New Hampshire Supreme Court decisions decided in late 2024 and early 2025 have significantly clarified the relationship between the two-tier penalty structure and the suppression remedy.

In State v. Clark, 2024 N.H. 64, No. 2023-0451 (N.H. Nov. 13, 2024), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that suppression under RSA 570-A:6 is required only when there has been a felony violation of RSA 570-A:2, I -- meaning a willful interception without all-party consent by someone outside the conversation. A one-party recording that constitutes only a misdemeanor under RSA 570-A:2, I-a does not trigger the suppression remedy.

The key facts in Clark: a victim in a criminal threatening case secretly recorded statements made by defendant Matthew Clark and later disclosed the recording to law enforcement. The defendant moved to suppress under RSA 570-A:6. The court held that RSA 570-A:2, I is the only provision prohibiting disclosure of an intercepted communication, meaning the disclosure bar applies only to communications intercepted in violation of the felony paragraph. The mental-state distinction -- willfully (felony) versus knowingly (misdemeanor) -- is outcome-determinative for suppression. The court remanded to the trial court to determine whether the victim's recording rose to a willful felony or only a knowing misdemeanor, because that determination controls admissibility.

In State v. Hersom, No. 2023-0352 (N.H. Jan. 24, 2025), the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed suppression of a covertly recorded audio recording. The State bears the burden of proving both that the recording was made in New Hampshire and that the recorder acted willfully -- failure on either element affects the suppression analysis.

Together, Clark and Hersom establish that participant recordings (covered by RSA 570-A:2, I-a) are not automatically suppressed even though they remain illegal -- but third-party willful interceptions (RSA 570-A:2, I) carry both felony exposure and mandatory suppression.

Civil Liability Under RSA 570-A:11

RSA 570-A:11 provides a civil remedy for any person whose telecommunication or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of RSA chapter 570-A. The statute authorizes liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is greater.

In addition to liquidated damages, RSA 570-A:11 allows recovery of actual damages if greater than the liquidated amount, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. A civil action may be brought regardless of whether the violation resulted in criminal prosecution.

This civil remedy runs parallel to the criminal framework and applies to both the felony and misdemeanor tiers of RSA 570-A:2. A single covert recording can therefore generate both criminal exposure and a civil judgment of at least $1,000 before punitive damages and attorney fees are added.

New Hampshire common law also recognizes an independent invasion-of-privacy tort. In Hamberger v. Eastman, 106 N.H. 107 (1964), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that a landlord who installed listening devices in a tenant's bedroom was liable for invasion of privacy. This foundational precedent establishes that NH common law protects reasonable expectations of privacy from secret surveillance beyond the statutory RSA 570-A framework.

Recording Police and Public Officials in New Hampshire

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which hears federal appeals from New Hampshire, has held that the First Amendment protects the right to record police officers carrying out their duties in public. In Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), the First Circuit held this right was clearly established, precluding qualified immunity for officers who arrested a bystander for filming an arrest on a public sidewalk.

This federal constitutional precedent under Glik is binding on NH federal courts -- the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire and the First Circuit -- and protects recording activity in federal civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Glik does not automatically override RSA 570-A in New Hampshire state criminal cases. New Hampshire state courts apply NH constitutional law (Part I, Art. 19 of the NH Constitution) alongside the federal First Amendment.

New Hampshire's Right-to-Know Law, RSA 91-A, explicitly permits the use of recording devices at public meetings. Under RSA 91-A:2-a, any person may use tape recorders, cameras, and other recording devices at public sessions of government bodies, and no government body may prohibit such recording. Recording at a public session under RSA 91-A is not a violation of RSA 570-A:2.

When recording police in public, best practice is to record openly without interfering with police duties, maintain a safe distance, and be aware that RSA 570-A's all-party consent framework technically applies to audio capture even in public settings -- though courts have generally found that officers performing public duties in public spaces do not hold a reasonable expectation of privacy in those communications.

Pending Legislation: HB 1508 and LSR 1242

Two separate legislative proposals introduced in the 2026 New Hampshire legislative session could change the state's recording consent framework. They have different scopes and should not be conflated.

HB 1508 (Broad Secret-Recording Bill)

HB 1508, introduced by Rep. Joseph Barton (R-Littleton), would end NH's all-party consent requirement and allow secret audio and video recording without other parties' knowledge. A public hearing was held by the House Judiciary Committee in January 2026. As of May 2026, HB 1508 has not been enacted. A similar bill was voted down in 2024. Readers should verify the current status of HB 1508 at gencourt.state.nh.us before relying on any change to NH's consent standard.

LSR 1242 (Narrow Public-Officials Carve-Out)

A separate legislative service request, LSR 1242, proposes a narrower amendment to RSA 570-A:2 that would add a new exemption allowing any person to record a public official in a public place while the official is performing their official duties -- without requiring the official's consent. If enacted, this would be the first explicit statutory carve-out in RSA 570-A for recording government officials, codifying existing First Circuit and First Amendment precedent under Glik. As of May 2026, LSR 1242's final bill number and legislative status have not been confirmed. Readers should verify at gencourt.state.nh.us.

These two proposals have distinct scopes: HB 1508 would broadly permit secret recording, while LSR 1242 would narrowly carve out recording of public officials on duty. Neither has been enacted.

Federal Law Overlay: TCPA, FCC, and Interstate Calls

AI Voice Calls and TCPA

FCC 24-17 (adopted Feb. 8, 2024) declared that AI-generated voice technologies -- including voice cloning and other tools that simulate or emulate a human voice -- constitute "artificial or prerecorded voice" within the meaning of the TCPA (47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B)). Callers using AI-generated voices must obtain prior express consent (or prior express written consent for telemarketing) from the called party before making such calls, absent an emergency purpose or statutory exemption.

FCC One-to-One Consent Rule Vacated

The FCC's 2023 One-to-One Consent Rule amended 47 CFR § 64.1200(f)(9) to require that a consumer's prior express written consent to receive autodialed or prerecorded telemarketing calls be limited to a single, specifically identified seller. The Eleventh Circuit vacated that rule in Insurance Marketing Coalition Ltd. v. FCC, 127 F.4th 303 (11th Cir. 2025) (decided Jan. 24, 2025). The court's mandate issued April 30, 2025. In response, the FCC reinstated the prior version of the rule via DA 25-621.

New Hampshire falls within the First Circuit, not the Eleventh; the Eleventh Circuit vacatur is not directly binding in NH federal courts. However, the FCC's reinstatement of the pre-2023 rule via DA 25-621 makes the one-to-one requirement non-operative nationwide. The operative rule reverts to the pre-2023 common-law consent standard.

Interstate Recordings

For interstate recordings -- where one party is in New Hampshire and the other is in a one-party consent state -- the location of the recording device matters. In State v. Hersom (2025), the New Hampshire Supreme Court emphasized that the State must prove the recording was made in New Hampshire for RSA 570-A to apply. If the recording device is located outside NH, the stricter NH all-party consent rule may not govern the recording. When in doubt, the safest approach is to obtain consent from all parties regardless of location.

Workplace Recording in New Hampshire

New Hampshire has no separate employer monitoring statute. RSA 570-A:2 applies fully to workplace recordings; employers and employees alike are subject to its all-party consent requirement.

An employer who records employee conversations without all parties' consent risks criminal liability under RSA 570-A:2, I (felony, third-party willful interception) or RSA 570-A:2, I-a (misdemeanor, if the employer is a party to the call). DOJ Justice Manual § 9-7.302 sets out the Attorney General's guidelines on consensual monitoring by federal law enforcement -- those guidelines are consistent with RSA 570-A:2, I-a's framework for participant recordings, where the recorder is a party to the conversation.

NLRB Standards for Workplace Recording Policies

In Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628, 372 NLRB No. 113 (Aug. 2, 2023), the NLRB adopted a standard under which facially neutral workplace rules -- including no-recording policies -- are presumptively unlawful if they have "a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their Section 7 rights" under the NLRA, and the employer cannot rebut that tendency by demonstrating a legitimate and substantial business justification. Employer recording bans must be narrowly drawn (for example, limited to trade-secret or confidential-client protection) to survive scrutiny.

NLRB Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued GC Memo 25-07 (June 25, 2025) directing regional offices to treat the surreptitious recording of collective bargaining sessions as a per se violation of the duty to bargain in good faith under NLRA §§ 8(a)(5) and 8(b)(3). The memo states that "the use of surreptitious recordings during the collective-bargaining process is inconsistent with the openness and mutual trust necessary for the process to function as contemplated by the Act." GC Memo 25-07 is prosecutorial guidance directing NLRB regional offices -- it is not a Board decision or binding court precedent. Stericycle (372 NLRB No. 113) remains the binding NLRB precedent on workplace recording policies.

Debt Collection Call Recording

CFPB Regulation F, 12 CFR § 1006.100(b) (effective Nov. 30, 2021), does not require debt collectors to record telephone calls; however, if a debt collector records any call made in connection with the collection of a debt, it must retain the recording for three years from the date of the call. A New Hampshire debt collector who is a party to the call and records without notifying the debtor commits a misdemeanor rather than a felony under RSA 570-A:2, I-a, but Regulation F's three-year retention obligation applies on top of that state-law framework.

HIPAA and FERPA: Special Contexts

Healthcare Recording

HHS OCR guidance requires covered health care providers and health plans to apply the HIPAA Privacy Rule's reasonable safeguards when using remote communication technologies for audio-only telehealth. Any audio recording of a patient communication that captures protected health information (PHI) is subject to 45 CFR § 164.508 authorization requirements and the security safeguards of 45 CFR Part 164, Subpart C.

New Hampshire healthcare providers may be subject to RSA 570-A:2, I-a if they record calls to which they are a party without all-party consent, but HIPAA's separate patient authorization requirement applies whenever the recording captures PHI -- meaning the lesser misdemeanor offense under state law does not substitute for HIPAA authorization. Both frameworks layer on top of each other; satisfying one does not satisfy the other.

School Recording and FERPA

FERPA (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) protects education records -- defined as records directly related to a student and maintained by an educational agency or institution. Audio and video recordings of students that are maintained by a school qualify as education records when they are directly related to a specific student (for example, disciplinary proceedings, injury documentation, or intentionally focused classroom recordings). Schools may not disclose such recordings without written consent from the parent or eligible student (34 CFR § 99.30) except under enumerated exceptions.

FERPA neither requires nor prohibits classroom recording as such; the consent obligation is triggered by school maintenance and disclosure. New Hampshire K-12 schools and public universities must satisfy FERPA's consent requirements in addition to RSA 570-A:2's recording-consent framework. FERPA does not create a recording-consent right that displaces RSA 570-A.

Video-Only Recording and Public Spaces

RSA chapter 570-A governs interception of oral communications and telecommunications -- meaning audio capture is required to trigger the all-party consent requirement. Silent video recording in a public space, where no audio is captured, is not an "interception" under RSA 570-A and does not require anyone's consent. However, recording a video that also captures audio -- even incidentally -- brings the recording within RSA 570-A's consent framework.

Separate statutes governing trespass, harassment, or voyeurism may apply to video recording in private spaces regardless of audio capture. Under RSA 644:9, it is a Class A misdemeanor to install or use any device to observe, photograph, or record a person's private body parts without consent, or to install recording devices in private places such as bathrooms, bedrooms, or changing rooms. Under RSA 644:9-a, sharing intimate or sexual images of another person without consent with intent to harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce is a Class B felony -- including synthetic or AI-generated images that manipulate a recognizable person's likeness into intimate content.

Homeowners may install security cameras on their own property but should avoid capturing audio of conversations in areas where others have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

New Hampshire Recording Law Topics

Explore the full NH recording law spoke network:

• New Hampshire Audio Recording Laws
• New Hampshire Video Recording Laws
• New Hampshire Phone Call Recording Laws
• New Hampshire Laws on Recording Police
• New Hampshire Laws on Recording in Public
• New Hampshire Workplace Recording Laws
• New Hampshire School Recording Laws
• New Hampshire Medical Recording Laws
• New Hampshire Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws
• New Hampshire Security Camera Laws
• New Hampshire Dashcam Laws
• New Hampshire Voyeurism Laws

More New Hampshire Laws

• New Hampshire AI Meeting Recording Laws
• New Hampshire Whistleblower Laws
• New Hampshire Data Privacy Laws
• New Hampshire Surveillance Camera Laws
• New Hampshire Ring Doorbell Laws
• New Hampshire Statute of Limitations
• New Hampshire Lemon Law
• New Hampshire Hit and Run Laws
• New Hampshire Dog Bite Laws
• New Hampshire Whistleblower Laws