New Hampshire
New Hampshire Phone Call Recording Laws
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 22, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 22, 2026. · 10 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

New Hampshire requires all-party consent before recording any phone call under RSA 570-A:2. Every participant must agree before you press record. A person who willfully records without that consent commits a Class B felony; a participant who knowingly records without consent faces a misdemeanor charge.
New Hampshire has one of the strictest phone call recording laws in the United States. Under RSA 570-A:2, you must obtain consent from every person on the call before pressing record. Unlike the majority of states that allow one-party consent, New Hampshire treats secret phone call recording as a serious criminal offense.
This guide covers everything you need to know about recording phone calls in the Granite State, including personal calls, business calls, interstate calls, VoIP and video calls, penalties for violations, and how to record calls legally.
The All-Party Consent Requirement for Phone Calls
What the Law Says
Under RSA 570-A:2, it is illegal to intercept any telecommunication without the consent of all parties. The term "telecommunication" is defined in RSA 570-A:1 as any communication made through the transmission of electronic signals. This definition covers:
- Landline telephone calls
- Cell phone calls on any carrier or network
- VoIP calls through services like Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Skype, or similar platforms
- Video calls via FaceTime, WhatsApp, Signal, or other applications (audio component)
- Conference calls with any number of participants
- Calls through messaging apps that transmit voice data
The law does not distinguish between recording the full call and recording only a portion. Pressing record at any point during a call without all-party consent violates the statute.
Consent Requirements
To legally record a phone call in New Hampshire:
- Inform every person on the call that you wish to record before the recording begins
- Obtain explicit consent from each participant, either verbally or in writing
- If any person declines, you must not record the call
- On conference calls, every participant must consent, not just the host or organizer
- Document the consent at the beginning of the recording by having each person verbally acknowledge their agreement
Simply stating "this call is being recorded" without receiving affirmative consent from each party is not sufficient under New Hampshire law. The statute requires actual consent, not mere notification.
Two-Tier Criminal Liability
New Hampshire's phone call recording law creates two levels of criminal exposure based on the recorder's mental state:
Class B Felony (RSA 570-A:2, I): A person who willfully intercepts a phone call without all-party consent commits a Class B felony. This applies to both participants and third parties (such as someone tapping a phone line). The maximum penalty is 7 years in state prison and a $4,000 fine under RSA 651:2.
Misdemeanor (RSA 570-A:2, I-a): A person who knowingly intercepts a phone call when they are a party to the call, or when one party has given prior consent, commits a misdemeanor. RSA 570-A:2, I-a does not itself set a penalty class: under RSA 625:9, it defaults to a Class B misdemeanor (no jail, up to a $1,200 fine) unless the State elects Class A treatment before arraignment or a violence element applies, raising the maximum to 1 year in jail and a $2,000 fine under RSA 651:2.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court clarified this two-tier framework in State v. Clark (2024) and State v. Hersom (January 2025), confirming that the distinction between "willfully" and "knowingly" determines whether the offense is a felony or misdemeanor.
Recording Personal Phone Calls

Can You Record Your Own Phone Calls?
Not without consent from the other person. Unlike the 38 states that follow one-party consent, New Hampshire does not allow you to secretly record a phone call you are participating in. Even though you are a party to the call, you must still obtain consent from every other person before recording.
If you record your own phone call without consent:
- You face a misdemeanor charge under RSA 570-A:2, I-a (if you acted "knowingly")
- You face a potential felony charge under RSA 570-A:2, I (if you acted "willfully")
- The other party can sue you for civil damages of at least $1,000 under RSA 570-A:11
Common Personal Scenarios
Recording a call with your landlord: You must inform your landlord and get their consent before recording. While documenting conversations about repairs or lease disputes is understandable, secret recording is illegal.
Recording a call with your ex-spouse or co-parent: Custody and divorce disputes often create a desire to record calls. In New Hampshire, you must obtain the other person's consent. If they decline, keep detailed written notes of the conversation instead.
Recording a call with a contractor or service provider: You need their consent before recording. Consider sending a follow-up email summarizing what was discussed to create a written record.
Recording threatening or harassing calls: Even if someone is making threats over the phone, secretly recording the call is technically illegal. Contact law enforcement, who may be able to obtain authorization to record under RSA 570-A:2, II(d) for harassing telephone calls.
Recording Business Phone Calls

Employer Call Recording Requirements
New Hampshire businesses that record phone calls must comply with the all-party consent requirement. This involves:
- Pre-call announcements: Automated messages stating "this call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes" should play before any conversation begins
- Opt-out opportunity: Callers must have the ability to decline recording, typically by hanging up or pressing a key to proceed without recording
- Employee consent: Employees whose calls are recorded must also give consent, usually through employment agreements or written acknowledgments
- Documentation: Companies should maintain written recording policies that specify which calls are recorded, retention periods, and access controls
- Training: Staff must be trained on proper procedures for initiating and managing recorded calls
Customer Service and Support Calls
Businesses operating customer service centers in New Hampshire should implement these practices:
- Play a recording notification before the customer is connected to an agent
- Give the customer a clear option to decline recording
- Ensure agents know how to disable recording if a customer requests it mid-call
- Store recorded calls securely and limit access to authorized personnel
- Follow data retention policies that specify how long recordings are kept
Compliance With Federal Law
In addition to New Hampshire state law, businesses must comply with federal regulations:
- The FCC requires that at least one party consent to recording interstate calls
- The Telephone Consumer Protection Act imposes additional requirements for telemarketing calls
- New Hampshire's stricter all-party consent standard supersedes the federal one-party consent standard for calls involving New Hampshire parties
Interstate Phone Call Recording

Which Law Applies?
When a phone call crosses state lines, determining which recording law applies becomes more complex. The general principle is that the stricter law governs:
- Calling from New Hampshire to a one-party consent state: You must follow New Hampshire's all-party consent rule because you are in New Hampshire
- Calling from New Hampshire to another all-party consent state: Both states' laws apply, reinforcing the need for all-party consent
- Receiving a call in New Hampshire from a one-party consent state: The caller may believe they can record freely, but New Hampshire law still applies to your end of the conversation
Neighboring State Comparison
| State | Consent Standard | Key Statute |
|---|---|---|
| New Hampshire | All-party consent | RSA 570-A:2 |
| Massachusetts | All-party consent | M.G.L. c. 272 Section 99 |
| Vermont | One-party consent (no wiretap statute; case law only, e.g. State v. Brooks) | Federal 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) floor |
| Maine | One-party consent | 15 M.R.S.A. Section 710 |
If you are in New Hampshire calling someone in Vermont or Maine, you still need all-party consent because you are subject to New Hampshire law. If you are calling someone in Massachusetts, both states require all-party consent.
Tips for Interstate Calls
- When in doubt, get consent. Always inform the other party and obtain their agreement before recording
- Business calls across state lines should follow the strictest applicable standard
- Document consent on the recording itself for legal protection
- Be aware of federal law as an additional baseline requirement
VoIP and Virtual Meeting Recording
Zoom, Teams, and Google Meet
Virtual meetings present unique challenges in New Hampshire:
- Platform recording features (such as Zoom's built-in recorder) typically notify all participants with a visual or audio alert. However, notification alone is not consent under New Hampshire law.
- All participants must affirmatively agree before recording begins
- Chat-based consent (typing "I consent" in the chat) may not be sufficient. Verbal consent recorded at the beginning of the meeting is stronger evidence.
- Participants who join late must also consent before their portion of the meeting is recorded
- Third-party recording tools that capture audio without participant notification are particularly risky
Best Practices for Virtual Meeting Recording
- Announce your intent to record at the start of every meeting
- Ask each participant to verbally confirm consent
- Wait for all confirmations before activating the recording
- Note any participants who join after recording started and obtain their consent
- Document your recording policy and share it with regular meeting participants in advance
Penalties for Illegal Phone Call Recording
Criminal Penalties
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Willful interception of phone call (RSA 570-A:2, I) | Class B Felony | 7 years | $4,000 |
| Knowing participant recording without consent (RSA 570-A:2, I-a) | Misdemeanor (Class B by default) | None (Class B); up to 1 year if State elects Class A | $1,200 (Class B); up to $2,000 (Class A) |
| Disclosure of illegally recorded call (RSA 570-A:2) | Class B Felony | 7 years | $4,000 |
Civil Liability
Under RSA 570-A:11, any person whose phone call is illegally recorded may sue for:
- Liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher
- Actual damages if they exceed the liquidated minimum
- Punitive damages for egregious conduct
- Attorney fees and litigation costs
Evidence Suppression
Under RSA 570-A:6, phone call recordings obtained through a felony violation of the wiretapping law may be suppressed in court proceedings. However, following the State v. Clark (2024) decision, recordings that constitute only a misdemeanor violation are not subject to suppression and may be admitted as evidence.
Law Enforcement Phone Recording
Police Recording of Phone Calls
Law enforcement officers in New Hampshire may record phone calls with one-party consent under the narrow exception in RSA 570-A:2, II(d), but only when:
- Investigating organized crime, wiretapping offenses, solid waste violations, or harassing/obscene telephone calls
- The Attorney General or designated assistant has authorized the recording
- A written memorandum is prepared within 72 hours
For other investigations, law enforcement must obtain a wiretap warrant through the courts.
Reporting Harassing Calls
If you receive threatening or harassing phone calls, report them to local law enforcement rather than attempting to record them yourself. Police may be able to obtain legal authorization to record incoming harassing calls under the RSA 570-A:2, II(d) exception.
Alternatives to Recording Phone Calls
Because New Hampshire makes it difficult to legally record phone calls without the other party's knowledge, consider these alternatives:
- Take detailed notes during or immediately after the call, including date, time, duration, and key points discussed
- Send a follow-up email summarizing the conversation and asking the other party to confirm or correct your summary
- Use a witness: Have a trusted person present during the call (on speakerphone) who can later provide testimony about what was said
- Request written confirmation of important agreements, decisions, or commitments made during the call
- Keep a call log with dates, times, and brief descriptions of what was discussed
More New Hampshire Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
Back to New Hampshire Recording Laws
More New Hampshire Recording Topics
More New Hampshire Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record a phone call in New Hampshire without telling the other person?
No. New Hampshire is an all-party consent state under RSA 570-A:2. You must inform every person on the call and obtain their consent before recording. Recording without consent is a misdemeanor for participants and a potential Class B felony, with civil damages of at least $1,000.
What happens if I record a call with someone in another state?
When calling across state lines, the stricter recording law typically applies. Because New Hampshire requires all-party consent, you must follow that standard regardless of the other state's law. If the other state also requires all-party consent (like Massachusetts), both laws reinforce the same requirement.
Can a business record my phone call in New Hampshire?
Only with your consent. Businesses must provide clear notification that the call may be recorded and give you the opportunity to decline. Simply playing a recording announcement is not enough if you are not given a chance to opt out. Employees whose calls are monitored must also consent through written agreements.
Is it legal to record a Zoom or Teams call in New Hampshire?
Only with all-party consent. The platform notification that recording has started is not sufficient consent under New Hampshire law. Every participant must affirmatively agree to the recording before it begins. Participants who join after recording started must also consent for their portion.
Can police record my phone calls without my knowledge in New Hampshire?
Only under narrow conditions. Law enforcement may record calls with one-party consent under RSA 570-A:2, II(d), but only when investigating specific crimes like organized crime or harassing telephone calls, and only with authorization from the Attorney General. For other investigations, a wiretap warrant is required.
Updates
Corrected the neighboring-state comparison table: Vermont has no wiretapping statute (its one-party default comes from case law and the federal floor), replacing a fabricated statute citation. Also fixed the TAKE IT DOWN Act's signing date to May 19, 2025.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the participant phone-call recording misdemeanor to state RSA 625:9's Class-B-by-default rule (no jail, up to $1,200) instead of presenting the Class A figures (1 year, $2,000) as the flat maximum.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Propagated State v. Clark (2024 N.H. 64, Nov. 13, 2024) and State v. Hersom (No. 2023-0352, Jan. 24, 2025) two-tier suppression framework from parent hub; confirmed RSA 570-A:2, I-a misdemeanor framing; updated federal overlay (NLRB GC Memo 25-07, [TAKE IT DOWN Act](/us-laws/take-it-down-act) May 19 2025); RSA 105-D body cam reference added where applicable.
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE LVIII PUBLIC JUSTICE, CHAPTER 570-A WIRETAPPING AND EAVESDROPPING
§ 570-A:2Interception and Disclosure of Telecommunication or Oral Communications Prohibited.In forcecited in 25 of our articles
I. A person is guilty of a class B felony if, except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter or without the consent of all parties to the communication, the person: (a) Wilfully intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any telecommunication or oral communication; (b) Wilfully uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when: (1) Such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in telecommunication, or (2) Such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication, or (3) Such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on premises of any business or other commercial establishment, or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment; or (c) Wilfully discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication, knowing or having reason to know that…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 35 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):New Hampshire courts read the felony offense in RSA 570-A:2, I as requiring more than intent to record. Fischer v. Hooper (1999) held wilfully means intentional or reckless disregard for the lawfulness of the conduct, so a good faith belief is a defense. State of New Hampshire v. Adam Mueller (2014) reversed on that mens rea.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Kilgus (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1986, 128 N.H. 577)✓A murder-for-hire middleman agreed to wear a hidden recorder and got the defendant to confirm paying $1,000 to have a man killed; the court held the taping was lawful under RSA 570-A:2, II(d) because one party consented and homicide is an enumerated offense.
- Fischer v. Hooper (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1999, 143 N.H. 585)✓A father secretly taped his ex-wife's calls with their daughter though a guardian ad litem had said both parents must agree; the court held wilfully in RSA 570-A:2, I requires intentional or reckless disregard for the lawfulness of the conduct, and reversed for a new trial.
- State of New Hampshire v. Adam Mueller (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2014, 166 N.H. 65)✓A police-accountability activist recorded three phone calls with a police captain and two school officials without telling them; the court held that instructing the jury on purposely rather than the statute's wilfully was plain error and reversed his wiretapping convictions.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Hampshire Security Camera Laws, New Hampshire Video Recording Laws, New Hampshire Voyeurism Laws
§ 570-A:1Definitions.In forcecited in 11 of our articles
As used in this chapter: I. "Telecommunication" means the transfer of any form of information in whole or in part through the facilities of a communications common carrier. "Telecommunication" does not include any communication made through a tone-only paging system or from a tracking device. II. "Oral communication" 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. III. "Intercept" means the aural or other acquisition of, or the recording of, the contents of any telecommunication or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device. IV.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 12 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Lamontagne (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1992, 136 N.H. 575)“…State contends that there was no “intercept” as defined by RSA 570-A:1, III (1986 & Supp. 1992), while the def…”
- State v. Lott (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2005, 152 N.H. 436)“…g.” State v. Townsend, 57 P.3d 255, 260 n.2 (Wash. 2002). RSA 570-A:1, IV states that an intercept is the rec…”
- State v. MacMillan (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2005, 152 N.H. 67)“…rial court’s ruling that the interception was illegal under RSA 570-A:1 (2001), the only issue before us is whe…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Hampshire Audio Recording Laws, New Hampshire Dashcam Laws, New Hampshire Laws on Recording in Public
§ 570-A:11Recovery of Civil Damages Authorized.In forcecited in 14 of our articles
Any person whose telecommunication or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this chapter shall have a civil cause of action against any person who intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to intercept, disclose or use such communications, and be entitled to recover from any such person: (a) actual damages but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of $100 a day for each day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher; (b) punitive damages; and (c) a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. Good faith reliance on a court order or on a representation made by the attorney general, deputy attorney general or a county attorney shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action brought under this chapter.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2021
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have applied RSA 570-A:11 as the chapter's private damages remedy. Desilets v. Wal-Mart Stores (1997) awarded fees and costs under 570-A:11(c) after a jury found statutory damages for secret workplace recording; Lath v. Manchester PD, et al. (2017) entered judgment for the defendant where no interception was shown.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Karen Warrington, individually, and as m/n/f of J.W. v. P John Edward Warrington (District Court, D. New Hampshire 2021, 2021 DNH 070)✓A father secretly recorded a call with his son at a New Hampshire boarding school and later used it in divorce proceedings; the court dismissed the mother's 570-A:11 damages claim because the complaint never alleged he was in New Hampshire when he recorded.
- Sanjeev Lath v. Oak Brook Condominium Owners’ Association, Gerard Dufresne, and Betty Mullen (District Court, D. New Hampshire 2018, 2018 DNH 013)“…upport dogs. Count 9: an eavesdropping claim under RSA 570-A:11 against Mullen, for installing came…”
- Lath v. Manchester PD, et al. (District Court, D. New Hampshire 2017, 2017 DNH 164)✓A condominium owner claimed a neighbor drilled holes in their shared wall and installed listening devices in his unit; on her unrebutted affidavit denying it, the court granted summary judgment against his 570-A:11 eavesdropping claim.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Hampshire Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws, New Hampshire Medical Recording Laws, New Hampshire School Recording Laws
§ 570-A:6Prohibition of Use as Evidence of Intercepted Telecommunications or Oral Communications.In forcecited in 9 of our articles
Whenever any telecommunication or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the state, or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be in violation of this chapter.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 16 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. McLeod (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2013, 165 N.H. 42)“…dio-recording of a one-party telephonic interception, see RSA 570-A:6 (2001). We reverse in part, vacate in p…”
- State v. MacMillan (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2005, 152 N.H. 67)“…sion of Detective Warchol’s testimony is not required under RSA 570-A:6 (2001) because the detective’s knowledg…”
- State v. Telles (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1995, 139 N.H. 344)“…ions that she had overheard. The defendant objected, citing RSA 570-A:6, which prohibits the admission of evide…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Hampshire Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), New Hampshire Recording Laws (2026): All-Party Consent Rules, New Hampshire Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE LXII CRIMINAL CODE, CHAPTER 625 PRELIMINARY
§ 625:9Classification of Crimes.In forcecited in 13 of our articles
I. The provisions of this section govern the classification of every offense, whether defined within this code or by any other statute. II. Every offense is either a felony, misdemeanor or violation. (a) Felonies and misdemeanors are crimes. (b) A violation does not constitute a crime and conviction of a violation shall not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on conviction of a criminal offense. III. A felony is murder or a crime so designated by statute within or outside this code or a crime defined by statute outside of this code where the maximum penalty provided is imprisonment in excess of one year; provided, however, that a crime defined by statute outside of this code is a felony when committed by a corporation or an unincorporated association if the maximum fine therein provided is more than $200. (a) Felonies other than murder are either class A felonies or class B felonies when committed by an individual. Felonies committed by a corporation or an unincorporated association are unclassified.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 65 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Samuel Pennock (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2015, 168 N.H. 294)“…shall not include incarceration or probation”); see also RSA 625:9, IV(b) (2007) (defining a class B misde…”
- State v. Morrill (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1983, 123 N.H. 707)“…ed the sum of $500. In 1971, the legislature enacted RSA 625:9, under which every offense defined with…”
- State v. Woods (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 1995, 139 N.H. 399)“…es that his violation is not a “criminal” act because under RSA 625:9, 11(b) (1986), a violation is not a “cr…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Hampshire Laws on Recording Police, New Hampshire AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), New Hampshire Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
New Hampshire Revised Statutes Annotated, TITLE LXII CRIMINAL CODE, CHAPTER 651 SENTENCES
§ 651:2Sentences and Limitations.In forcecited in 14 of our articles
I. A person convicted of a felony or a Class A misdemeanor may be sentenced to imprisonment, probation, conditional or unconditional discharge, or a fine. II. If a sentence of imprisonment is imposed, the court shall fix the maximum thereof which is not to exceed: (a) Fifteen years for a class A felony, (b) Seven years for a class B felony, (c) One year for a class A misdemeanor, (d) Life imprisonment for murder in the second degree, and, in the case of a felony only, a minimum which is not to exceed 1/2 of the maximum, or if the maximum is life imprisonment, such minimum term as the court may order. II-a. A person convicted of murder in the first degree shall be sentenced as provided in RSA 630:1-a. II-b. A person convicted of a second or subsequent offense for the felonious use of a firearm, as provided in RSA 650-A:1, shall, in addition to any punishment provided for the underlying felony, be given a minimum mandatory sentence of 3 years imprisonment.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at gc.nh.gov
Cited in 147 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Russell (2009) found plain error where the jury was never asked whether the deadly weapon was a firearm, as RSA 651:2, II-g requires, but affirmed the extended term because that evidence was overwhelming. State v. Elbert (1984) held the minimum and maximum term rule of RSA 651:2, II applies only if a defendant is parole eligible.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Kousounadis (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2009, 159 N.H. 413)“…rder, see RSA 173-B:9, III (2002). He was sentenced under RSA 651:2, II-g (2007). We affirm in part, revers…”
- State v. Russell (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2009, 159 N.H. 475)✓A jury convicted Russell of armed robbery but was never instructed it had to find the deadly weapon was a firearm; the court called the resulting RSA 651:2, II-g enhanced sentence plain error yet declined to disturb it given overwhelming, undisputed firearm evidence.
- Duquette v. Warden, New Hampshire State Prison (Supreme Court of New Hampshire 2007, 154 N.H. 737)✓A prisoner serving consecutive sexual assault terms argued no statute allowed them; the court found RSA 651:2 silent on consecutive sentences except its firearm provision in II-b, but held trial courts retain common law authority to impose them and rejected a vagueness challenge.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Hampshire Workplace Recording Laws
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 422 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- RSA 570-A:2 - Interception Prohibited(gc.nh.gov).gov
- RSA 570-A:1 - Definitions(gc.nh.gov).gov
- RSA 570-A:11 - Civil Damages(gencourt.state.nh.us).gov
- RSA 570-A:6 - Evidence Suppression(gencourt.state.nh.us).gov
- RSA 651:2 - Sentences(gc.nh.gov).gov
- FCC Recording Guide(fcc.gov).gov
- State v. Clark 2024(courts.nh.gov).gov
- State v. Hersom 2025(courts.nh.gov).gov
- RSA Chapter 570-A - Wiretapping and Eavesdropping (Full Chapter)(gc.nh.gov).gov
- RSA 625:9 - Classification of Crimes(gc.nh.gov).gov