New Mexico
New Mexico Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 2 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

title: "New Mexico Surveillance Camera Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026" meta_description: "Learn about New Mexico surveillance camera laws including home security cameras, workplace monitoring, hidden cameras, audio recording rules, and penalties for violations." slug: "us-laws/surveillance-camera-laws/new-mexico-surveillance-camera-laws" category: "surveillance-camera-laws" last_updated: "2026-03-15"
Overview of New Mexico Surveillance Camera Laws
New Mexico does not have a single, comprehensive surveillance camera statute that covers every situation. Instead, the state relies on a combination of wiretapping laws, voyeurism statutes, constitutional privacy protections, and common law principles to regulate when and where cameras can be used.
The primary laws that affect surveillance camera use in New Mexico include NMSA 30-12-1 (Interference with Communications), NMSA 30-9-20 (Voyeurism), and the privacy protections found in Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution.
Understanding how these laws interact is essential for homeowners, business owners, employers, and anyone who uses security cameras in the state.
Home Surveillance Camera Laws in New Mexico
Your Right to Install Cameras on Your Property

Homeowners in New Mexico generally have the right to install surveillance cameras on their own property. You can place security cameras on the exterior of your home, in your garage, in common living areas, and in your yard without running afoul of state law.
This right stems from the basic principle that property owners can take reasonable steps to protect their homes, families, and belongings. Video-only recording on your own property is not specifically restricted by any New Mexico statute.
Where You Cannot Place Cameras
Even on your own property, you cannot place cameras in areas where other people have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Under New Mexico law, this includes bathrooms, bedrooms used by guests, changing areas, and any space where a person would reasonably expect not to be observed.
If you have tenants, roommates, or regular guests, you must avoid placing hidden cameras in spaces they use privately. Doing so could expose you to criminal charges under the voyeurism statute (NMSA 30-9-20) and civil liability for invasion of privacy.
Audio Recording Considerations for Home Cameras
Many modern home security cameras include microphone functionality. This is where New Mexico law adds an important layer of complexity.
NMSA 30-12-1 makes it a crime to interfere with communications, including reading, taking, or copying a telephone or telegraph message without the sender's or recipient's consent, unless a specific exception applies. The statute's own consent exception is drafted narrowly for law enforcement, and it requires no writing of any kind: it excuses a person "acting under color of law in the investigation of a crime" who is a party to the communication or who has obtained the prior consent of one of the parties. As a practical matter, being a participant in your own phone call is generally understood to place you outside this prohibition, but the statute's text does not spell that out for private citizens the way it does for law enforcement.
However, the New Mexico wiretapping statute specifically applies to "telephone" and "wire" communications. In-person, oral conversations are not explicitly covered by the statute in the same way. Courts have generally interpreted this to mean that audio recording of face-to-face conversations may not be subject to the same statutory protections as telephone calls.
That said, recording someone without their knowledge in a private setting could still give rise to civil claims for invasion of privacy under common law. The safest approach for home security cameras with audio is to notify people that recording is taking place, either through signage or verbal notice.
Workplace Surveillance Camera Laws
Employer Rights and Limitations
New Mexico does not have a specific state statute that governs workplace video surveillance. Employers are generally permitted to install security cameras in common work areas such as lobbies, hallways, warehouses, retail floors, and parking lots.
The legal basis for this is straightforward. Employees generally do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in shared, open work areas. Employers have a legitimate interest in preventing theft, ensuring safety, monitoring operations, and protecting company property.
Areas Where Cameras Are Prohibited
Employers cannot place cameras in areas where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy. These restricted areas include:
- Restrooms and bathrooms
- Locker rooms and changing areas
- Private break rooms (in some cases)
- Nursing or lactation rooms
- Any space designated for personal, private use
Placing cameras in these areas could result in criminal charges under the voyeurism statute and substantial civil liability.
Audio Recording in the Workplace
Workplace audio surveillance presents additional legal concerns. Even though a participant in their own phone call is generally treated as free to record it under New Mexico practice, continuously recording workplace audio through security cameras raises different issues.
Under federal law, specifically the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. 2511), intercepting oral communications without consent can be unlawful. An employer who records workplace audio without informing employees may face both federal and state legal exposure.
Best practice for New Mexico employers is to either disable audio recording on security cameras or provide clear, written notice to all employees that audio recording is taking place. Including this information in an employee handbook or posting visible signs throughout the workplace can help establish that employees have been informed.
Employee Notification
While New Mexico does not have a specific law requiring employers to notify employees about video-only surveillance in common areas, providing notice is strongly recommended. Written policies about camera use, posted signs, and employee handbook provisions all help protect employers from legal claims.
Some industries in New Mexico have specific surveillance requirements. For example, cannabis-related businesses must comply with detailed video surveillance regulations set by the state Cannabis Control Division under the New Mexico Administrative Code.
Hidden Camera Laws in New Mexico
The Voyeurism Statute: NMSA 30-9-20

New Mexico directly addresses the use of hidden cameras through its voyeurism statute, NMSA 30-9-20. This law makes it illegal to intentionally use "the unaided eye or instrumentality" to view, photograph, videotape, film, webcast, or record the intimate areas of another person without that person's knowledge and consent.
The statute applies when the person being recorded is in the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or any other setting where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
What Counts as "Intimate Areas"
Under NMSA 30-9-20, "intimate areas" are defined as the primary genital area, groin, buttocks, anus, or breasts, as well as the undergarments that cover those areas.
This definition is specific and targeted. The law focuses on recordings that capture a person in a state of undress or that target body parts normally covered by clothing, rather than general video surveillance of a person going about their daily activities.
Penalties for Voyeurism
Violating the voyeurism statute carries serious consequences:
- Adult victims: Voyeurism is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000 under NMSA 31-19-1.
- Minor victims: If the victim is under 18 years of age, the offense is elevated to a fourth degree felony, carrying a basic sentence of 18 months in prison under NMSA 31-18-15.
These penalties apply to anyone who uses a hidden camera, spy camera, or any other recording device to capture images of intimate areas without consent in a private setting.
Nanny Cams in New Mexico
Using a nanny cam in your own home is generally legal in New Mexico, provided you follow certain guidelines.
You can use a video-only nanny cam in common areas of your home, such as the living room, kitchen, playroom, or nursery. The camera should not be placed in a bathroom, bedroom where the nanny changes clothes, or any other area where the caregiver has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
The critical issue with nanny cams is audio recording. If your nanny cam records audio, you should inform the caregiver that audio recording is taking place. While New Mexico's wiretapping statute focuses on telephone communications, recording in-person audio conversations without any party's consent could create legal exposure under federal law or give rise to a civil invasion of privacy claim.
Best practices for nanny cam use in New Mexico include:
- Place cameras only in common areas where your child spends time
- Avoid placing cameras in bathrooms or the caregiver's private space
- If the camera records audio, inform the caregiver
- Consider including a surveillance disclosure in your employment agreement
- Use nanny cams for legitimate purposes such as child safety, not for harassing or intimidating the caregiver
Neighbor Disputes Over Security Cameras
When a Neighbor's Camera Points at Your Property
Disputes over security cameras between neighbors are common in New Mexico. Generally, a neighbor has the right to install security cameras on their own property, even if those cameras capture some view of your property.
The legal analysis depends on what the camera is recording. A camera that captures a general view of a neighbor's front yard, driveway, or the public street is typically not a violation of privacy, because these are areas visible to the public. You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in areas that are openly visible from a neighbor's property.
However, a camera deliberately aimed to look into your windows, capture the interior of your home, or record areas of your property where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy could give rise to legal claims.
Potential Legal Claims
If a neighbor's camera is being used in a way that violates your privacy, New Mexico law provides several potential avenues for relief:
- Voyeurism (NMSA 30-9-20): If the camera is being used to view or record intimate areas without consent in a private setting, the neighbor could face criminal charges.
- Stalking (NMSA 30-3A-3): Stalking is a demanding charge, and unwanted surveillance on its own does not meet it. The statute reaches a "pattern of conduct," meaning two or more acts on more than one occasion in which the person follows, monitors, surveils, threatens, or communicates to or about you, but only where the person intends that the pattern of conduct would place you in reasonable apprehension of death, bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement, or restraint. A neighbor whose camera merely unsettles or annoys you does not satisfy that intent element. A first offense is a misdemeanor. A second or subsequent offense is a fourth degree felony.
- Harassment (NMSA 30-3A-2): Camera use that constitutes a pattern of harassment may also be actionable under New Mexico's harassment statute.
- Criminal Trespass (NMSA 30-14-1): If a neighbor physically enters your property to install a camera without permission, they could face trespassing charges, which is a misdemeanor.
- Civil Invasion of Privacy: New Mexico courts recognize common law invasion of privacy claims, which could apply when a neighbor's surveillance is unreasonable, intrusive, and offensive to a reasonable person.
Practical Steps for Resolving Camera Disputes
Before pursuing legal action, consider these practical steps:
- Talk to your neighbor directly about your concerns
- Document the camera's placement and what it appears to record
- Install privacy fencing, landscaping, or window treatments
- If the issue persists, consult with a local attorney about your options
- File a police report if you believe a law is being violated
Audio Recording Laws in New Mexico
One-Party Consent for Telephone Communications
Under NMSA 30-12-1, interference with communications is a crime unless a specific exception applies. One of those exceptions covers a person "acting under color of law in the investigation of a crime" who is a party to the communication, or who has obtained the prior consent of one of the parties, before intercepting, monitoring, or recording it.
That exception is written specifically for law enforcement, and the statute's text does not extend it to private citizens generally. In practice, a private individual who is a party to their own telephone call is widely treated as free to record it without informing the other party, but that practical understanding rests on the statute simply not reaching a person's own communications, not on a court ruling that extends the law-enforcement exception to private citizens.
In-Person Conversations
The New Mexico wiretapping statute specifically addresses "telephone" and "wire" communications. It does not explicitly extend the same protections to in-person, oral conversations in the way that some other states' wiretapping laws do.
This distinction is important for surveillance camera users. A camera that records audio of in-person conversations may not be directly covered by NMSA 30-12-1, but that does not mean recording oral conversations is always permissible.
Federal wiretapping law (18 U.S.C. 2511) prohibits the intentional interception of oral communications. The "reasonable expectation" standard for what counts as a protected oral communication comes from the ECPA's definitions in 18 U.S.C. 2510, not from 2511 itself, but 2511's prohibition still applies in New Mexico and can create liability even where state law is silent.
Penalties for Unlawful Interception
Violating New Mexico's wiretapping statute (NMSA 30-12-1) is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.
In addition to criminal penalties, NMSA 30-12-11 provides a civil cause of action for anyone whose communications are unlawfully intercepted, disclosed, or used. A victim can recover:
- Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $100 per day of the violation or $1,000, whichever is higher
- Punitive damages
- Reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs
This civil remedy is available regardless of whether the person who intercepted the communication has been criminally convicted.
Unauthorized Distribution of Sensitive Images
New Mexico has enacted a specific law addressing the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. Under NMSA 30-37A-1, it is illegal to distribute, publish, or otherwise make available sensitive images of a person without that person's consent. The offense has two elements, and both must be present.
First, the person must act with the intent to harass, humiliate, or intimidate the depicted person, to incite someone else to harass, humiliate, or intimidate that person, to cause that person to reasonably fear for their own or a family member's safety, to cause that person unwanted physical contact or injury, or to cause that person substantial emotional distress. Second, the conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress.

"Sensitive images" under this law means images, photographs, videos, or other likenesses that depict or simulate an intimate act, or that depict any portion of a person's genitals, or of a woman's breast below the top of the areola, that is either uncovered or visible through less-than-fully-opaque clothing, where the images may reasonably be considered private, intimate, or inappropriate for distribution without that person's consent.
A first offense is a misdemeanor. A second or subsequent conviction is a fourth degree felony, carrying up to 18 months in prison.
This law is particularly relevant when surveillance camera footage captures intimate or private moments. Even if the original recording was legal, distributing that footage without consent can result in criminal charges where the distribution is made with one of the intents listed above.
Patient Care Monitoring Act
New Mexico has a specific law, the Patient Care Monitoring Act (NMSA Chapter 24, Article 26), that addresses the use of surveillance cameras in nursing homes and long-term care facilities.
Under this act, a patient or their legal surrogate may authorize the installation and use of a monitoring device in the patient's room at a licensed long-term care facility. Key provisions include:
- The patient or surrogate pays for the monitoring equipment
- The facility must be given notice of the installation
- Written consent from any roommate is required
- Visual recordings must include date and time stamps
- A conspicuous notice must be posted at the entrance to the room
The facility cannot deny admission, discharge a patient, or retaliate against anyone for choosing to install a monitoring device. Any person who intentionally tampers with, obstructs, or destroys a monitoring device or its recordings is guilty of a fourth degree felony.
Constitutional Privacy Protections
Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution provides that "the people shall be secure in their persons, papers, homes and effects, from unreasonable searches and seizures." New Mexico courts have interpreted this provision as offering privacy protections that are at least as strong as, and in some cases broader than, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
This constitutional protection primarily restricts government surveillance. If a government entity or law enforcement agency installs or uses surveillance cameras in a way that constitutes an unreasonable search, the New Mexico Constitution provides a basis for challenging that surveillance.
For private citizens, the constitutional protection is less directly applicable, but it informs the broader legal framework and the courts' understanding of what constitutes a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cases involving surveillance cameras.
Penalties Summary
Here is a summary of the penalties associated with surveillance-related offenses in New Mexico:
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Jail/Prison | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interference with communications (NMSA 30-12-1) | Misdemeanor | Up to 1 year in county jail | $1,000 |
| Voyeurism, adult victim (NMSA 30-9-20) | Misdemeanor | Up to 1 year in county jail | $1,000 |
| Voyeurism, victim under 18 (NMSA 30-9-20) | Fourth degree felony | 18 months in prison | $5,000 |
| Stalking, first offense (NMSA 30-3A-3) | Misdemeanor | Up to 1 year in county jail | $1,000 |
| Stalking, second offense (NMSA 30-3A-3) | Fourth degree felony | 18 months in prison | $5,000 |
| Unauthorized distribution of sensitive images, first offense (NMSA 30-37A-1) | Misdemeanor | Up to 1 year in county jail | $1,000 |
| Unauthorized distribution of sensitive images, second offense (NMSA 30-37A-1) | Fourth degree felony | 18 months in prison | $5,000 |
| Tampering with patient monitoring device (Ch. 24, Art. 26) | Fourth degree felony | 18 months in prison | $5,000 |
| Criminal trespass (NMSA 30-14-1) | Misdemeanor | Up to 1 year in county jail | $1,000 |
Related New Mexico Camera and Privacy Laws
- New Mexico Recording Laws covers the consent rule that governs camera audio in New Mexico.
- New Mexico Security Camera Recording Rules explains the recording-law side of camera use.
- New Mexico Biometric Privacy Laws addresses facial recognition and biometric data.
- New Mexico Ring Doorbell Laws covers video doorbell rules in New Mexico.
Common Camera Questions
These national guides answer the most common surveillance camera questions:
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to have security cameras outside my home in New Mexico?
Yes. Homeowners in New Mexico can install security cameras on the exterior of their property, including on the front porch, near the garage, in the yard, and along driveways. The cameras should not be pointed directly into a neighbor's windows or areas where others have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Can my employer record me on camera at work in New Mexico?
Employers in New Mexico can use video surveillance cameras in common work areas such as lobbies, hallways, warehouses, and retail floors. However, cameras cannot be placed in restrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, or other spaces where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Do I need consent to record a phone call in New Mexico?
New Mexico's wiretapping statute, NMSA 30-12-1, targets interference with telephone and wire communications. Its prior-consent exception applies to law enforcement and imposes no writing requirement, but in practice a private citizen who is a participant in their own phone call is generally treated as free to record it without informing the other party. If you are not a party to the call, you need the consent of at least one participant.
Are nanny cams legal in New Mexico?
Video-only nanny cams are generally legal in common areas of your home such as the living room, kitchen, or nursery. You should not place cameras in bathrooms or any area where the caregiver has a reasonable expectation of privacy. If the camera records audio, you should inform the caregiver to avoid potential legal issues.
What can I do if my neighbor's camera is pointed at my house?
A neighbor generally has the right to install cameras on their own property. However, if the camera is deliberately aimed to record the interior of your home or areas where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, you may have legal recourse. Document the situation, talk to your neighbor, and consult a local attorney if the issue is not resolved.
Updates
Corrected the elements of New Mexico stalking (NMSA 30-3A-3) to the current specific-intent standard, added the required intent element and the statutory definition of sensitive images under NMSA 30-37A-1, and removed the incorrect description of NMSA 30-12-1 as containing a written consent exception.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reworked the NMSA 30-12-1 one-party-consent claim throughout the article: the statute's consent exception is written for law enforcement investigating a crime, not private citizens generally, so the practical one-party framing now reads as practice rather than statutory text. Also fixed a wrong-section citation that attributed the 'reasonable expectation' standard to 18 U.S.C. 2511 instead of 2510.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
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 Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, Chapter 30
§ 30-9-20Voyeurism prohibited; penaltiesIn forcecited in 26 of our articles
A. Voyeurism consists of intentionally using the unaided eye to view or intentionally using an instrumentality to view, photograph, videotape, film, webcast or record the intimate areas of another person without the knowledge and consent of that person: (1) while the person is in the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room or tanning booth or the interior of any other area in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy; or (2) under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place. B. Whoever commits voyeurism is guilty of a misdemeanor, except if the victim is less than eighteen years of age, the offender is guilty of a fourth degree felony. C. As used in this section: (1) "intimate areas" means the primary genital area, groin, buttocks, anus or breasts or the undergarments that cover those areas; and (2) "instrumentality" means a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camcorder, computer, motion picture camera, digital camera, telephone camera, photographic camera or electronic device of any type.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):The New Mexico cases citing Section 30-9-20 reach it as a charge rather than construing its elements. State v. Webb (2017) involved voyeurism counts under 30-9-20(A)(1) over hidden bathroom video of a minor but decided only mandatory joinder. State v. Myers (2009) noted the section was not enacted until 2007.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Kerr v. Parsons (New Mexico Supreme Court 2016, 10 N.M. 227)“…llo, 23 charging him with counts of voyeurism, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-9-20 24 (2007), possession of a controlled…”
- State v. Myers (New Mexico Court of Appeals 2009, 147 N.M. 574)✓Myers hid a camera in an office restroom in 2004 to record women and was convicted of child pornography. The court noted voyeurism under 30-9-20 was not a crime until 2007 and held that applying a later "voyeuristic quality" test to his 2004 conduct violated due process.
- State v. Webb (New Mexico Court of Appeals 2017, 2017 NMCA 77)“…dant with voyeurism (child under eighteen), in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-9-20(A)(1) (2007), attempted voyeurism (chil…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 30-12-1Interference with communications; exceptionIn forcecited in 37 of our articles
Interference with communications consists of knowingly and without lawful authority: A. displacing, removing, injuring or destroying any radio station, television tower, antenna or cable, telegraph or telephone line, wire, cable, pole or conduit belonging to another, or the material or property appurtenant thereto; B. cutting, breaking, tapping or making any connection with any telegraph or telephone line, wire, cable or instrument belonging to or in the lawful possession or control of another, without the consent of such person owning, possessing or controlling such property; C. reading, interrupting, taking or copying any message, communication or report intended for another by telegraph or telephone without the consent of a sender or intended recipient thereof; D. preventing, obstructing or delaying the sending, transmitting, conveying or delivering in this state of any message, communication or report by or through telegraph or telephone; or E. using any apparatus to do or cause to be done any of the acts hereinbefore mentioned or to aid, agree with, comply or conspire with any person to do or permit or cause to be done any of the acts hereinbefore mentioned.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Cross-referenced in the statute itself: § 30-12-11
Cited in 19 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Johnson (2010) held the consent exception in 30-12-1(E)(3) applies to jail calls where the caller impliedly consents by calling with knowledge the call is recorded. State v. Templeton (2007) found a call from the booking area, recorded with no notice, violated the Act, while a call placed after a recorded notice did not.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Johnson (New Mexico Supreme Court 2010, 148 N.M. 50)✓A jail inmate awaiting a murder retrial made recorded calls asking others to appear at trial and influence testimony; the court held the statute was not violated because an automated message warned both sides, so its prior consent exception applied.
- State v. Ocon (New Mexico Court of Appeals 2021, 493 P.3d 448)“…63); and interference with communications, in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-12-1 (1979). On those charges, the jury only…”
- State v. Templeton (New Mexico Court of Appeals 2007, 142 N.M. 369)✓Two of a jailed defendant's phone calls were recorded; the court held the statute was violated as to the booking-area call, where no notice was given and guarded speech did not imply consent, but not as to a later call from a phone that announced monitoring.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 30-12-11Right of privacy; damagesIn forcecited in 14 of our articles
A. Any person whose wire or oral communication is intercepted, disclosed or used in violation of this act [30-12-1 to 30-12-11 NMSA 1978] shall: (1) 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 (2) be entitled to recover from any such person actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages computed at the rate of one hundred dollars ($100) for each day of violation or one thousand dollars ($1,000), whichever is higher; punitive damages; and a reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. B. A good faith reliance on a court order or on the provisions of this act shall constitute a complete defense to any civil or criminal action. C. Any communications common carrier which in good faith acts in reliance upon a court order or in compliance with any of the provisions of this act shall not be liable for any civil or criminal action.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Cross-referenced in the statute itself: § 30-12-1
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2007
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Templin v. Mountain Bell Telephone Co. (New Mexico Court of Appeals 1982, 97 N.M. 699)“…pted, disclosed or used in violation of this act [30-12-1 to 30-12-11 NMSA 1978] shall; (1) have a civil cause of act…”
- State v. Templeton (New Mexico Court of Appeals 2007, 142 N.M. 369)“…under a court order as provided in Sections 30-12-2 through 30-12-11 NMSA 1978; or (2) by an operator of a swit…”
- State v. Coyazo (New Mexico Court of Appeals 1997, 123 N.M. 200)“…under a court order as provided in Sections 30-12-2 through 30-12-11 NMSA 1978; or (2) by an operator of a swit…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 30-37A-1Unauthorized distribution of sensitive images; penaltiesIn forcecited in 13 of our articles
A. Unauthorized distribution of sensitive images consists of distributing, publishing or otherwise making available, by an electronic communications device or other means, sensitive images of a person, with or without information identifying that person, without that person's consent: (1) with the intent to: (a) harass, humiliate or intimidate that person; (b) incite another to harass, humiliate or intimidate that person; (c) cause that person to reasonably fear for that person's own or family members' safety; (d) cause that person to suffer unwanted physical contact or injury; or (e) cause that person to suffer substantial emotional distress; and (2) where the conduct is such that it would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. B.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Valerio (New Mexico Court of Appeals 2025)“…n for the purpose of transfer to or use by a prisoner”); NMSA 1978, § 30-37A-1(B)(1) (2015) (prohibiting the unauthori…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 30-3A-3Stalking; penaltiesIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
A. Stalking consists of knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct, without lawful authority, directed at a specific individual when the person intends that the pattern of conduct would place the individual in reasonable apprehension of death, bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement or restraint of the individual or another individual. B. As used in this section: (1) "lawful authority" means within the scope of lawful employment or constitutionally protected activity; and (2) "pattern of conduct" means two or more acts, on more than one occasion, in which the alleged stalker by any action, method, device or means, directly, indirectly or through third parties, follows, monitors, surveils, threatens or communicates to or about a person. C. Whoever commits stalking is guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, the offender is guilty of a fourth degree felony. D.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-26 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):New Mexico courts apply Section 30-3A-3 in pattern-of-conduct cases. State v. Duran (1998) held that where identical acts prove both harassment and stalking, double jeopardy bars separate punishment and harassment is subsumed into stalking. State v. Anderson (2001) applied it as the predicate for aggravated stalking.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Stein (New Mexico Court of Appeals 1999, 127 N.M. 362)“…of this section. 1995 N.M.Laws, ch. 23, § 1 (codified at NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-3(B) (1995)). In the Criminal Procedure…”
- State v. Duran (New Mexico Court of Appeals 1998, 126 N.M. 60)✓Duran peered into a woman's windows, watched her home and followed her over more than a year; the court upheld the stalking verdict but held that where identical acts prove both offenses, harassment is subsumed into stalking and both punishments cannot stand.
- State v. Anderson (New Mexico Court of Appeals 2001, 130 N.M. 295)✓Anderson made repeated calls, stared at a woman and waited outside her Alcoholics Anonymous meetings; the court reversed the aggravated stalking conviction for lack of a deadly weapon nexus and remanded for judgment on stalking under Section 30-3A-3.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 30-3A-2Harassment; penaltiesIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. Harassment consists of knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that is intended to annoy, seriously alarm or terrorize another person and that serves no lawful purpose. The conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. B. Whoever commits harassment is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Duran (New Mexico Court of Appeals 1998, 126 N.M. 60)“…ns, (2) whether the New Mexico criminal harassment statute, NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-2 (1993), is unconstitutionally vague, (3…”
- State v. Gonzales (New Mexico Court of Appeals 1997, 123 N.M. 337)“…xico criminal statutes against stalking and harassment. See NMSA 1978, §§ 30-3A-2 (Repl. Pamp. 1994), 30-3A-3 (Cum.Supp.1…”
- State Ex Rel. Schwartz v. Sanchez (New Mexico Supreme Court 1997, 123 N.M. 165)“…Morgan Bates was charged with one count of harassment under NMSA 1978, Section 30-3A-2 (Repl.Pamp.1994). The case was tried on…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 30-14-1Criminal trespassIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
A. Criminal trespass consists of knowingly entering or remaining upon posted private property without possessing written permission from the owner or person in control of the land. The provisions of this subsection do not apply if: (1) the owner or person in control of the land has entered into an agreement with the department of game and fish [department of wildlife] granting access to the land to the general public for the purpose of taking any game animals, birds or fish by hunting or fishing; or (2) a person is in possession of a landowner license given to him by the owner or person in control of the land that grants access to that particular private land for the purpose of taking any game animals, birds or fish by hunting or fishing. B. Criminal trespass also consists of knowingly entering or remaining upon the unposted lands of another knowing that such consent to enter or remain is denied or withdrawn by the owner or occupant thereof. Notice of no consent to enter shall be deemed sufficient notice to the public and evidence to the courts, by the posting of the property at all vehicular access entry ways. C.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Cited in 39 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Foulenfont (New Mexico Court of Appeals 1995, 119 N.M. 788)“…property are protected under our criminal trespass statute. NMSA 1978, § 30-14-1 (Repl.Pamp.1994). CONCLUSION…”
- Roark v. Farmers Group, Inc. (New Mexico Court of Appeals 2007, 142 N.M. 59)“…citation omitted), superseded by statute on other grounds, NMSA 1978, § 30-14-1 (1995), as stated in State v. McCormack…”
- Risk Management Division v. McBrayer (New Mexico Court of Appeals 2000, 129 N.M. 778)“…e results in property damage may be guilty of trespass, see NMSA 1978, § 30-14-1(D) (1995); and, conceivably, an employe…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 418 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.
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 126 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, Chapter 31
§ 31-19-1Sentencing authority[;] misdemeanors; imprisonment and fines; probation.In forcecited in 6 of our articles
A. Where the defendant has been convicted of a crime constituting a misdemeanor, the judge shall sentence the person to be imprisoned in the county jail for a definite term less than one year or to the payment of a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or to both such imprisonment and fine in the discretion of the judge. B. Where the defendant has been convicted of a crime constituting a petty misdemeanor, the judge shall sentence the person to be imprisoned in the county jail for a definite term not to exceed six months or to the payment of a fine of not more than five hundred dollars ($500) or to both such imprisonment and fine in the discretion of the judge. C. When the court has deferred or suspended sentence, it shall order the defendant placed on supervised or unsupervised probation for all or some portion of the period of deferment or suspension.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Cited in 27 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Ramos (New Mexico Supreme Court 2013, 2013 NMSC 31)“…year, or payment of a fine of not more than $1000, or both. NMSA 1978, § 31-19-1(A) (1984). {13} The statute does not s…”
- State v. Johnson (New Mexico Court of Appeals 1988, 107 N.M. 356)“…robation were within the authority of the magistrate court. NMSA 1978, § 31-19-1 (Repl.Pamp.1987). If the only re…”
- State v. NICK R. (New Mexico Supreme Court 2009, 147 N.M. 182)“…sdemeanor criminal penalty of up to six months in jail, and NMSA 1978, § 31-19-1(B) (1984), for carrying “a concealed lo…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 31-18-15Sentencing authority; noncapital felonies; basic sentences and fines; parole authority; meritorious deductions.In forcecited in 7 of our articles
A. As used in a statute that establishes a noncapital felony, the following defined felony classifications and associated basic sentences of imprisonment are as follows: FELONY CLASSIFICATION BASIC SENTENCE first degree felony resulting in the death of a child life imprisonment first degree felony for aggravated criminal sexual penetration life imprisonment first degree felony eighteen years imprisonment second degree felony resulting in the death of a human being eighteen years imprisonment second degree felony for a sexual offense against a child fifteen years imprisonment second degree felony for sexual exploitation of children twelve years imprisonment second degree felony nine years imprisonment third degree felony resulting in the death of a human being six years imprisonment third degree felony for a sexual offense against a child six years imprisonment third degree felony for sexual exploitation of children eleven…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Cited in 242 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Montoya (New Mexico Court of Appeals 2015, 7 N.M. 445)“…e death of the child is guilty of a first degree felony.”); NMSA 1978, § 31-18-15(A)(3) (2003) (stating that the basic se…”
- State v. Smith (New Mexico Supreme Court 2004, 136 N.M. 372)“…ffender is guilty of a fourth degree felony, as provided in Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978, and shall be sentenced to a jail term…”
- State v. Frawley (New Mexico Supreme Court 2007, 143 N.M. 7)“…e for a third-degree felony is three years of imprisonment, NMSA 1978, § 31-18-15(A)(5) (1999, prior to amendments throug…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Explore the law
The laws cited above reference these related sections in their own text:
- New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, Chapter 30 § 30-12-2 — Grounds for order of interception view in our statute record · read at the official source
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- NMSA 30-12-1: Interference with Communications; Exception(law.justia.com)
- NMSA 30-9-20: Voyeurism Prohibited; Penalties(law.justia.com)
- NMSA 30-12-11: Right of Privacy; Damages(law.justia.com)
- NMSA 30-3A-3: Stalking; Penalties(law.justia.com)
- NMSA 30-37A-1: Unauthorized Distribution of Sensitive Images; Penalties(law.justia.com)
- NMSA 30-14-1: Criminal Trespass(law.justia.com)
- NMSA 31-19-1: Sentencing Authority; Misdemeanors(law.justia.com)
- NMSA 31-18-15: Sentencing Authority; Noncapital Felonies(law.justia.com)
- New Mexico Constitution, Article II, Section 10: Searches and Seizures(law.justia.com)
- Patient Care Monitoring Act (SB0401)(nmlegis.gov).gov
- NM General Services Department Security Camera Policy(generalservices.state.nm.us).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511: Federal Wiretapping Law(law.cornell.edu)
- NMSA 1978, Chapter 30 (Criminal Offenses), official text via New Mexico One Source(nmonesource.com)