Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    450

    Default NH and recording law

    After a recent post referencing audio recording and MA law i was curious to see if anyone had knowledge of audio and/or video recording laws in NH. Thanks

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    450

    Default

    found this:

    The 37 states which allow “one party consent” recording of oral communications are: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. The District of Columbia also allows people to record conversations with the consent of only one party. Nevada has a one party consent statute but there is some question as to how the law should be interpreted by the courts – it could be considered an “all party consent” state.

    The 12 states which definitely require all parties to a conversation to consent before it can be recorded are: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Washington. (In California, there is an exception – you can record a conversation with the consent of only one party if certain criminal activity (kidnapping, extortion, bribery or a violent felony) is involved.)

    this seems to contradict what i read in a different post atleast regarding MA laws, however i believe someone did post that if the individual is onformed you are recording and they continue to talk knowing this, it is assumed consent???????
    Last edited by MJM; 07-18-2012 at 09:30 AM.

  3. #3

    Default

    Its funny because I've been looking into Game cams, and there was some talk about how this affects recording laws. And, some suggested that video is legal but audio requires consent.

    Of course, I take this with a grain of salt until I read the actual law because the internet is full of facts that are not true.

    But, it did bring to my attention that there is a difference between audio and video laws in some areas.

  4. #4
    NES Member Boghog1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Live Free or Die
    Posts
    16,644

    Default

    This will also depend on what/who you are recording, a recent court ruling held that recording LEOs while they are during their duty is not illegal

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatch...rst-amendment/
    complete ruling here
    http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opin...-1764P-01A.pdf
    “The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.” - Albert Camus
    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.. - Thomas Jefferson
    Morons hate it when you call them a moron. - JD Salinger
    43%

  5. #5
    NES Member JWPaolilliJr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the woods of Swanzey,NH
    Posts
    8,386

    Default

    So has Weare, New Hampshire, Police Dept, Pulled in their thugs???
    "Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end"

    R.J.Wiedemann.LtCol.USMC Ret.

  6. #6

    Default

    NH is similar to MA on this point. All party consent/knowledge required.
    In life, if you don't risk something, you risk everything.
    *Support Comm2A in the fight to protect MA gun rights in the courts.*
    Follow Comm2A on Twitter and Facebook
    The above post does not reflect the opinions of any organization I may be associated with. IANAL

  7. #7

    Default

    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...-A/570-A-2.htm

    As others have noted NH requires two party consent for audio recording. There is some debate about recordings that include audio when the parties being recorded do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The NH AG recently sent this memo out to police departments telling them about the Glick decision and letting them know audio and video recording police in public is generally allowed.

    http://freeconcord.files.wordpress.c...likwarning.pdf

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by terraformer View Post
    NH is similar to MA on this point. All party consent/knowledge required.
    There is a HUGE difference between "knowledge" and "consent". Many columnists doing articles on this concept seem to be unable to grasp the very real difference between the two, which is surprising, since television journalism involves lots of "ambush filming" in which the recording is obvious, as is the lack of consent from the subject.

    The MA standard is that the voice recording must not be surreptitious - which means the parties must either be informed, or the recording done in such a manner that a reasonable person would be able to conclude voice recording was occurring. For example, holding up a video/audio camera and recording someone does not require "consent" if done in the open, but does if the recording equipment is hidden or disguised.

    Do you know if NH is "knowledge" or "consent"?
    Check out the USPSA Northeast Section at www.uspsa-ne.org, and the USPSA nationals site at www.uspsa.org

  9. #9
    NES Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    3,774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Boudrie View Post
    Do you know if NH is "knowledge" or "consent"?
    Before Glick, there were AG opinions issued that said consent was required, but that's not what the law says.

    570-A:2 makes it an offense to intercept an "oral communication". Most people think they know what that means. But, there's a statutory definition that takes precedence over any other definition:

    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...-A/570-A-1.htm

    570-A:1 Definitions. – As used in this chapter:
    II. "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. (emphasis added)

    It has always been my opinion that once a person is informed or should reasonably know that audio recording is in progress (visible camcorder in use, etc.), they are no longer under circumstances that justify any expectation that their communication is not subject to interception.

    While the AG opinion disagrees, this always does seem to be the sticking point at which charges are eventually dropped.

    Also worth noting: the police love to immediately make it a felony charge, but the law is clear that it's only a misdemeanor if you're a party to your own recording. It's only a felony if no one in the conversation knows it's being recorded.

  10. #10
    NES Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    3,774

    Default

    Forgot to mention: Dave Ridley once encountered a cop over something trivial, and as he usually does informed him right up front that he was audio and video recording. Dave was actually about to leave their very brief encounter when the cop told him to turn off the camera because he didn't consent to being recorded.

    Dave told him, "You don't have to consent, but you have the right to remain silent."


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •