New Mexico
New Mexico Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 24, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 24, 2026. How we verify our legal content
Smart glasses are legal to own and wear in New Mexico. Because New Mexico follows a one-party consent rule under N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-12-1 (Abuse of Privacy), you can lawfully record any telephone or electronic communication you are a party to with smart glasses audio on, without notifying the other participants. Video recording in public is generally lawful under both federal and state law. The critical limits are the voyeurism statute, private spaces where recording is always prohibited regardless of consent, and a notable judicial limitation on the state wiretap statute that smart glasses wearers need to understand.
Information last verified on 2026-06-07. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses New Mexico recording consent law under N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-12-1 and unlawful recording and voyeurism under 30-9-20. It does not address federal wiretap law in depth; for that background, see the New Mexico recording laws parent page. It does not address the laws of other states.
For a full explanation of New Mexico's one-party consent rule and how it applies to phones, in-person conversations, and the workplace, see the New Mexico recording laws guide.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in New Mexico?
Smart glasses are entirely legal to own and wear in New Mexico. No New Mexico statute restricts the sale, possession, or use of wearable camera-equipped eyewear as a device category. New Mexico has not enacted any legislation specifically targeting smart glasses, digital eyewear, or wearable recording devices as of June 2026. The legality question turns not on the device itself but on what you do with it: the audio-recording capability is what triggers New Mexico's Abuse of Privacy statute, and the visual capability in certain spaces triggers the voyeurism statute.
Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in capture LED indicator, a white light near the right frame, that illuminates whenever the camera is actively recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. Meta upgraded this LED from 1mm to 2mm and increased its brightness in response to privacy concerns. Meta's official guidance states that users should "let that capture LED light shine" and stop recording if anyone expresses that they would prefer not to be recorded. The LED is the most tangible external signal that recording is happening, and its visibility is relevant to whether another person has a reasonable expectation that a conversation is not being captured.
Wearing smart glasses in public, at work, or in social settings is not independently unlawful in New Mexico. The legal analysis focuses entirely on whether the audio component captures a private communication without any party's consent, and whether the recording device is used in a location where voyeurism law applies.
Recording Video in Public Versus Private Spaces
Under both federal and New Mexico law, video-only recording in public is generally lawful. The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. sections 2510-2522) covers only "aural transfers" that contain the human voice. Silent video recording is not an interception under because it does not involve an oral communication as defined in section 2510(2). New Mexico's Abuse of Privacy statute tracks the same principle: it addresses the interception of private communications, not the act of observing or filming people in public places where they can be seen.
The constitutional baseline is Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), which established that Fourth Amendment protections attach wherever a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. People on public streets, in parks, at festivals, in stores, or on sidewalks have a reduced expectation of privacy from being observed or filmed. Smart glasses used to record video of a crowd, a public event, or street scenes generally do not create legal exposure under New Mexico law.
Private spaces present a categorically different analysis. In any location where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their physical person and intimate conduct, such as a home, hotel room, medical office, or other enclosed space where entry requires permission, recording without consent can be both a civil intrusion and a criminal voyeurism violation. The bright line is between the reduced privacy expectation of being seen in public and the strong expectation people hold in spaces where they reasonably believe they will not be observed or recorded.
Semi-public spaces introduce a middle category that requires careful judgment. A workplace conference room, a private medical consultation, or a restaurant booth where two people are having a quiet conversation are spaces where a person may be physically present among others yet still hold a reasonable expectation that their words and conduct are not being captured. In those contexts, recording can support a civil intrusion-upon-seclusion claim under Restatement (Second) of Torts section 652B if the recording would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, even when no criminal statute is technically violated.
Recording Audio and New Mexico's One-Party Consent Rule
The central legal framework for smart glasses audio recording in New Mexico is N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-12-1, the Abuse of Privacy statute. The statute establishes a one-party consent standard: any person who is a party to a private communication may record that communication without the knowledge or consent of the other participants. This is consistent with the federal baseline position under (2)(d).
What this means in practice for smart glasses users is straightforward in the telephone and electronic communication context: if you are wearing Meta Ray-Ban glasses and you are having a phone call or a video call through the glasses, activating the audio recording function is lawful because you are a participant in that communication. You do not need to announce that you are recording. The other party does not need to consent.
However, smart glasses wearers in New Mexico need to understand a significant judicial limitation. The New Mexico Court of Appeals held in State v. Hogervorst (1977 NMCA 057) that the Abuse of Privacy statute applies to telephone and telegraph communications but does not extend to in-person, face-to-face oral conversations. This means there is a statutory gap in New Mexico: the primary state eavesdropping statute does not directly govern someone using smart glasses to record an in-person verbal exchange the way it covers a phone call. The legal analysis for in-person recording in New Mexico therefore relies more heavily on the federal Wiretap Act framework and common-law privacy torts than the state statute alone.
Under the federal Wiretap Act, in-person recording still falls under the one-party consent exception at 18 U.S.C. section 2511(2)(d): a participant may record a conversation they are part of without violating federal law, even in New Mexico. The Hogervorst limitation means there is no state-law criminal analog for in-person interception, but the federal standard applies and provides both criminal penalties and civil remedies for non-participant interception.
Non-participant interception of a communication covered by 30-12-1, meaning telephone or electronic communications, is the clearly prohibited conduct under New Mexico state law. If a person who is not part of a communication uses smart glasses to record that private telephone or electronic exchange without any party consenting, that person violates 30-12-1. This is a misdemeanor under New Mexico law, carrying up to 364 days in county jail and a fine of up to $1,000 per offense.
The civil consequences under N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-12-11 can exceed the criminal penalties. The statute provides for recovery of the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or a flat $1,000 minimum per violation, plus punitive damages for willful violations and reasonable attorney fees. A recording session involving multiple intercepted communications can multiply these figures quickly.
For smart glasses users, the practical application is clear: recording communications you are actively participating in is lawful. Pointing your glasses at others to capture communications you are not part of exposes you to both criminal liability under 30-12-1 (for covered communications) and federal civil liability under the ECPA (for all categories of private oral and electronic communication).
For the full detail of how New Mexico's one-party consent rule applies to phone calls, workplace recordings, and other contexts, see the New Mexico recording laws page.
Where You Cannot Record: Restrooms, Locker Rooms, and Private Spaces
New Mexico's voyeurism statute, N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-9-20, draws an absolute line that no consent analysis can overcome. The statute criminalizes the secret observation, photography, filming, or recording of another person in a place where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, covering circumstances where intimate or private areas of the body would be exposed.
Protected locations include bathrooms, restrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, changing areas, private residences, and any other space where a person would reasonably expect that their body or intimate conduct will not be observed or recorded. Section 30-9-20 applies to smart glasses exactly as it applies to hidden cameras, body cameras, or any other recording device. The innocuous appearance of smart glasses, which can be visually indistinguishable from ordinary prescription frames, does not create an exception. If anything, the covert appearance of smart glasses strengthens the inference that a recording in these prohibited spaces was intentional and hidden.
The criminal penalties under 30-9-20 depend on the age of the victim. Where the victim is an adult, the offense is a misdemeanor, carrying up to 364 days in county jail and a fine of up to $1,000. Where the victim is under 18 years old, the offense escalates to a fourth-degree felony, punishable by up to 18 months imprisonment and a fine of up to $5,000. These felony consequences carry lasting collateral effects beyond the sentence itself, including the possibility of sex offender registration in appropriate cases.
The federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act () provides a parallel prohibition for recordings on federal property, covering anyone who intentionally captures images of another person's private areas without consent where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Federal law applies on federal land; New Mexico section 30-9-20 applies throughout the state.
Watch out: The wearable form factor of smart glasses is not a defense to voyeurism charges. A court analyzing whether recording was "secret" under 30-9-20 would consider that the device appeared to be ordinary eyewear, which strengthens evidence of intentional concealment. The only safe rule is to remove or deactivate smart glasses before entering restrooms, locker rooms, changing areas, or any other private space, regardless of whether recording is actively occurring.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy
New Mexico does not have a dedicated biometric privacy statute comparable to Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14), Texas' Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (Tex. Bus. and Com. Code sections 503.001-503.004), or Washington's biometric identifiers law (RCW Chapter 19.375) as of June 2026. A New Mexico resident who uses smart glasses equipped with facial-recognition software to identify strangers does not face per-person statutory damages under a state biometric law.
The absence of a New Mexico-specific biometric statute does not mean facial recognition via smart glasses is consequence-free in the state. Civil liability under common-law privacy torts remains available to individuals. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts section 652B, a person who intentionally intrudes upon the seclusion of another is liable if the intrusion would be "highly offensive to a reasonable person." The intrusion itself creates liability; there is no requirement that the information be published or shared. Using smart glasses with a facial-recognition application to identify strangers in real time, extracting names and other identifying information without their knowledge, satisfies both the intent and offensiveness elements of this tort.
The October 2024 demonstration by Harvard students AnhPhu Nguyen and Caine Ardayfio illustrated precisely this kind of risk. Using Meta Ray-Ban glasses combined with a third-party facial-recognition tool, they were able to identify strangers on the street and retrieve home addresses and partial Social Security numbers in real time. Meta's glasses provided the camera; the facial-recognition capability came from a separately installed application. That distinction matters: the glasses themselves do not perform facial recognition, but they can become the capture mechanism for a system that does.
If a New Mexico-based person uses smart glasses with facial-recognition features in Illinois, Texas, or Washington, the biometric statutes of those states apply to the residents of those states whose biometric data is captured. Illinois BIPA in particular provides a private right of action with statutory damages of $1,000 per negligent violation and $5,000 per intentional or reckless violation per person. A New Mexico resident traveling to or doing business in those states faces meaningful liability exposure if facial recognition is used without consent. Multi-state users should treat Illinois, Texas, and Washington as categorical no-go zones for facial-recognition use without explicit prior consent.
Penalties for Violating New Mexico's Recording Laws
New Mexico's recording-related criminal penalties span two statutes, each carrying distinct consequences for smart glasses misuse.
Under N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-12-1, non-participant interception of a covered private communication is a misdemeanor. Misdemeanor penalties in New Mexico carry imprisonment of up to 364 days in county jail and a fine of up to $1,000 per offense. Note that this statute applies most clearly to telephone and electronic communications; in-person interception is governed by federal law rather than this state statute.
The civil consequences under N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-12-11 are calculated independently of the criminal penalty. The private civil right of action provides recovery of the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or a flat minimum of $1,000 per violation, plus punitive damages for willful violations and reasonable attorney fees. A recording session involving multiple intercepted calls or messages can produce multiple independent violations.
Under N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-9-20, voyeuristic recording in private spaces carries penalties that vary by victim age. Where the victim is an adult, the offense is a misdemeanor with up to 364 days in county jail and a fine up to $1,000. Where the victim is under 18, the offense is a fourth-degree felony carrying up to 18 months imprisonment and a fine of up to $5,000, with the possibility of sex offender registration consequences.
At the federal level, violations of the Wiretap Act under 18 U.S.C. section 2511 carry up to 5 years imprisonment and civil liability of at least $10,000 in statutory damages per violation, with attorney fees. Federal law provides a floor that applies throughout New Mexico.
| Violation | Statute | Classification | Imprisonment | Fine |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-participant interception (telephone/electronic) | N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-12-1 | Misdemeanor | Up to 364 days | Up to $1,000 |
| Voyeurism (adult victim) | N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-9-20 | Misdemeanor | Up to 364 days | Up to $1,000 |
| Voyeurism (victim under 18) | N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-9-20 | Fourth-degree felony | Up to 18 months | Up to $5,000 |
| Federal wiretap violation | 18 U.S.C. section 2511 | Federal felony | Up to 5 years | $10,000+ statutory |
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in New Mexico
Following a few straightforward practices significantly reduces legal exposure when using smart glasses in New Mexico.
Keep the capture LED visible. Meta Ray-Ban glasses include a built-in white LED that illuminates when the camera is recording, taking a photo, or streaming live. Meta's guidance is explicit: let the LED shine. Never cover, tape over, or otherwise obstruct the LED. Doing so removes the only external notice that recording is occurring and strengthens evidence of intentional covert recording, the exact intent that aggravates both eavesdropping and voyeurism charges.
Understand the Hogervorst limitation. New Mexico's Abuse of Privacy statute, under the Court of Appeals' ruling in State v. Hogervorst (1977 NMCA 057), does not reach in-person face-to-face oral conversations at the state level. This means the state criminal penalty for non-participant in-person recording is not directly established under 30-12-1, but federal Wiretap Act exposure remains fully intact for any private in-person oral communication intercepted without any party's consent. Do not treat the Hogervorst gap as permission to record in-person conversations covertly.
Use your one-party consent protection. New Mexico's one-party consent rule under 30-12-1 gives participants a clear legal foundation to record telephone and electronic communications they are part of. The protection applies when you are actively engaged in the communication being recorded. It does not apply if you intercept communications you are not part of, or if you aim your glasses at others to capture conversations you did not join.
Never record in private spaces. Bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, bedrooms, and any other space where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their body are absolute prohibitions under 30-9-20. Remove or deactivate smart glasses before entering these spaces. The penalty escalates to a fourth-degree felony when a minor is the victim.
Be cautious crossing state lines. New Mexico's one-party rule is permissive, but it applies only within New Mexico. If you travel to California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, or another all-party consent state, that state's more restrictive law governs any audio recording you make there. Smart glasses users who frequently travel should be aware that the legal environment changes at the state border.
Avoid facial-recognition features. Even without a New Mexico biometric statute, using facial recognition to identify individuals without their knowledge creates exposure under common-law privacy torts. In professional or commercial contexts involving residents of Illinois, Texas, or Washington, the biometric statutes of those states apply. Use facial-recognition features only with explicit, disclosed consent.
Consider announcing recording even when not legally required. In New Mexico, one-party consent means you are not legally required to announce that you are recording a telephone or electronic communication you are part of. In practice, announcing the recording or ensuring the capture LED is clearly visible to others removes ambiguity and eliminates any argument about reasonable expectations of privacy in the communication.
Disclaimer
This article provides general legal information about New Mexico recording consent law and voyeurism statutes as they apply to smart glasses. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The statutes discussed reflect their in-force versions as of June 7, 2026. Laws may change; always verify current statute text with the New Mexico Legislature's official publication or a licensed New Mexico attorney. Readers who need advice about a specific situation, including whether a recording was lawful or whether civil or criminal liability may apply, should consult a lawyer licensed in New Mexico.
Last updated: 2026-06-07. Statutes cited reflect their in-force versions as of 2026-06-07.
More New Mexico Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Are smart glasses legal in New Mexico?
Yes. Smart glasses are legal to own and wear in New Mexico. No New Mexico statute restricts the device itself. The legal analysis focuses on how the glasses are used, specifically whether the audio recording captures private communications without any party's consent, or whether the device is used in spaces where the voyeurism statute applies.
Do I need consent to record audio with smart glasses in New Mexico?
No, if you are a participant in the communication. New Mexico follows a one-party consent rule under N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-12-1, which means any party to a private communication may record it without notifying or obtaining consent from the other parties. You must be an active participant. Recording the communications of others when you are not a party is a misdemeanor under state law and also creates federal Wiretap Act exposure.
Is New Mexico a one-party consent state for recording?
Yes. Under N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-12-1, New Mexico requires only one party to consent to the recording of a private communication. Because the person doing the recording is typically a party to the communication, a participant can lawfully record any telephone or electronic communication they are part of without notifying others.
Does the Hogervorst case affect smart glasses recording in New Mexico?
It can. The New Mexico Court of Appeals held in State v. Hogervorst (1977 NMCA 057) that the Abuse of Privacy statute applies to telephone and telegraph communications but not to in-person, face-to-face oral conversations. This means the state criminal penalty under 30-12-1 for non-participant in-person recording is not clearly established under state law. Federal Wiretap Act liability still applies to covert in-person recording. Smart glasses wearers should not interpret this gap as permission to record in-person conversations without being a party.
Can I record a conversation at work with smart glasses in New Mexico?
Recording a workplace conversation you are part of, whether by phone or in person, is generally consistent with New Mexico's one-party consent rule. In-person recordings have additional nuance under Hogervorst, but federal one-party consent still applies. Workplace recordings may also implicate employer policies. Recording a conversation you are not part of is a misdemeanor under 30-12-1 for covered communications and creates federal civil liability for in-person conversations. Always check your employer's recording policy before recording at work.
What happens if I record someone in a bathroom or locker room with smart glasses in New Mexico?
Recording in a bathroom, locker room, changing room, or any other private space where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their body constitutes voyeurism under N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-9-20, regardless of any consent analysis. If the victim is an adult, the offense is a misdemeanor carrying up to 364 days in county jail and a fine up to $1,000. If the victim is under 18, it becomes a fourth-degree felony with up to 18 months imprisonment and a fine up to $5,000.
Can I be sued for recording someone with smart glasses in New Mexico?
Yes. N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-12-11 provides a private civil right of action for unlawful interception of telephone or electronic communications. Damages are the greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or a flat $1,000 minimum per violation, plus punitive damages for willful violations and attorney fees. Additionally, recording a person in a private or semi-private context without their knowledge can support a civil claim for intrusion upon seclusion under Restatement (Second) of Torts section 652B regardless of publication.
Is facial recognition with smart glasses legal in New Mexico?
New Mexico has no dedicated biometric privacy statute as of June 2026. However, using smart glasses with facial-recognition software to identify individuals without their consent can create civil liability under the intrusion-upon-seclusion tort. If the glasses are used to capture biometric data from residents of Illinois, Texas, or Washington, the biometric statutes of those states may apply regardless of where the recording physically occurred.
Does the capture LED on Meta Ray-Ban glasses matter legally in New Mexico?
Yes. The LED on Meta Ray-Ban glasses is the primary external notice that recording is occurring. Keeping it visible supports a position that recording was open rather than covert. Covering or disabling the LED removes this notice and strengthens evidence of intentional covert recording, which is directly relevant to both the eavesdropping and voyeurism statutes. Meta's own guidance requires users to keep the LED unobstructed.
What if I travel from New Mexico to a two-party consent state and use my smart glasses there?
New Mexico's one-party consent rule applies to recordings made in New Mexico. If you travel to an all-party consent state such as California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, or Washington, that state's law governs audio recordings made there. Recording private conversations without all parties' consent in those states can be a criminal offense regardless of your home state's rules. Smart glasses users who travel should research the recording consent law of each state they visit.
Can I record a police officer with my smart glasses in New Mexico?
Recording police officers performing their duties in a public space is generally protected under the First Amendment and is consistent with New Mexico's one-party consent rule when you are present and participating in or observing a lawful public interaction. Audio recording of a public law enforcement encounter where you are present falls within the one-party consent protection under the federal framework. For a full analysis of recording police in New Mexico, see the New Mexico recording laws page.
Can I wear smart glasses while driving in New Mexico?
New Mexico restricts the use of handheld wireless communication devices while driving. Whether wearing smart glasses while driving implicates New Mexico distracted-driving statutes depends on the specific activity; navigation use differs from actively recording or streaming video while operating a vehicle. The legal status of smart glasses for navigation use is not explicitly resolved in New Mexico law as of June 2026. Streaming video, social media use, or non-navigation activities on a heads-up display while driving creates significantly greater legal and safety risk.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; 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
§ 30-12-1Interference 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 opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 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.
Leading cases:
- 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 opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2007
Leading cases:
- 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.
§ 30-9-20Voyeurism 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 opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 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.
Leading cases:
- 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.
United States Code Title 18
§ 1801Video voyeurismIn forcecited in 79 of our articles
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. In this section— the term “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast; the term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual; the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means— circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or circumstances in which a…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 53 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have applied 18 U.S.C. 1801 mainly at its edges. United States v. Johnson (2010) read it as Congress's answer to secretly filming nudity on federal property, acquitting on a child exploitation charge instead. EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security (2011) applied the Section 1801(c) law enforcement exception to a TSA scanner claim.
Leading cases:
- United States v. Anthony Helton (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2019, 944 F.3d 198)“…from this list of federal offenses is video voyeurism under 18 U.S.C. § 1801. Rather than list this statute as an enu…”
- United States v. Johnson (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2010, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1059)✓A weightlifting coach hid a camera to film minors weighing in nude; acquitting him under the child exploitation statute, the court called that conduct plain video voyeurism under section 1801, but noted the section reaches only federal maritime and territorial jurisdiction.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2011, 653 F.3d 1)✓Privacy groups challenged TSA body scanners under the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act; the D.C. Circuit held the statute's exception for lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity applied to airport screening, so the section 1801 claim failed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 122 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 opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 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).
Leading cases:
- 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.
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 415 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 opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 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.
Leading cases:
- 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.
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
- N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-12-1: New Mexico Abuse of Privacy statute. One-party consent rule for telephone and electronic communications. Non-participant interception is a misdemeanor (up to 364 days in county jail, fine up to $1,000).(nmlegis.gov)
- N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-12-11: New Mexico private civil right of action for unlawful interception. Damages: greater of actual damages, $100 per day of violation, or $1,000 minimum per violation, plus punitive damages for willful violations and attorney fees.(nmlegis.gov)
- N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-9-20: New Mexico voyeurism statute. Prohibits secret recording in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Misdemeanor for adult victim (up to 364 days, $1,000 fine); fourth-degree felony for victim under 18 (up to 18 months, $5,000 fine).(nmlegis.gov)
- State v. Hogervorst, 1977 NMCA 057, 566 P.2d 828 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977): held that N.M. Stat. Ann. 30-12-1 applies to telephone and telegraph communications but does not extend to in-person, face-to-face oral conversations.(courtlistener.com)
- 18 U.S.C. section 2511: Federal Wiretap Act. One-party consent exception at section 2511(2)(d). Criminal penalty: up to 5 years. Civil statutory damages: at least $10,000 per violation.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. section 2510: Federal Wiretap Act definitions. 'Oral communication' (section 2510(2)) and 'aural transfer' (section 2510(18)) establish that video-only recording is not a wiretap interception.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. section 1801: Federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act. Prohibits capturing images of private areas of individuals on federal property without consent.(law.cornell.edu)
- Meta Ray-Ban AI Glasses official privacy page. Documents the capture LED notification system and Meta's guidance to keep the LED unobstructed.(meta.com)
- Restatement (Second) of Torts section 652B: Intrusion upon seclusion. Intentional intrusion into another's private affairs is actionable if highly offensive to a reasonable person.(cyber.harvard.edu)