New Mexico
New Mexico Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
New Mexico is a one-party consent state for telephone audio recording under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1, allowing you to record any phone call you participate in without notifying other parties. In-person conversations fall outside the state wiretapping statute, but federal law still makes it a crime to secretly record a private conversation you are not part of unless a participant consents.
New Mexico is a one-party consent state for audio recording of telephone and wire communications. Under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1, you can legally record any phone call you participate in without notifying or getting permission from other participants. What makes New Mexico unusual is that in-person conversations fall entirely outside the state wiretapping statute, so state law sets no consent rule for face-to-face audio. Federal law still does: you may record a conversation you take part in, but not a private conversation you are not part of without a participant's consent.
This guide covers everything you need to know about audio recording laws in New Mexico, including when you can record, how the statute treats different types of communication, penalties for violations, and practical guidance for common situations.
How New Mexico's Audio Recording Law Works
The Statutory Framework
New Mexico's audio recording rules are found in Chapter 30, Article 12 of the New Mexico Statutes, titled "Abuse of Privacy." The key statutes that govern audio recording are:
- N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1 establishes the criminal offense of interference with communications, covering telegraph and telephone communications.
- N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-2 sets the grounds for court-ordered interception of communications.
- N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-11 creates a civil cause of action for victims of illegal interception, titled "Right of privacy; damages."
Under § 30-12-1(C), it is illegal to knowingly and without lawful authority read, interrupt, take, or copy any message, communication, or report intended for another by telegraph or telephone without the consent of the sender or intended recipient. The statute only covers communications transmitted by "telegraph or telephone."
What "One-Party Consent" Means in Practice
One-party consent means exactly one person involved in the communication must know about and agree to the recording. That person can be you. If you are on a phone call, you satisfy the consent requirement simply by being a participant who chooses to record.
Here are common audio recording scenarios in New Mexico:
- Recording a phone call you are on. Legal under one-party consent. You can use your phone's built-in recorder, a third-party app, or an external recording device.
- Recording an in-person conversation you participate in. Legal. The state wiretapping statute does not cover face-to-face audio, and federal law allows a participant to record.
- Having someone else record a phone call on your behalf. Legal if you, as a party to the call, authorize the recording in advance.
The Critical Distinction: Telephone vs. In-Person Audio
New Mexico's wiretapping statute has a narrower scope than most other states. The law specifically references "telegraph or telephone" communications. In-person, face-to-face conversations are not covered by § 30-12-1. This creates a two-tier system for audio recording:
| Type of Audio | Consent Required | Governing Law |
|---|---|---|
| Telephone/wire calls | One-party consent | N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1 |
| In-person conversations | Not covered by state statute; a participant may record, an outsider needs a participant's consent | 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (federal) |
| VoIP calls (Zoom, Teams) | One-party consent (best practice) | N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1 |
| Video call audio | One-party consent (best practice) | N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1 |
In practice, a participant may record a face-to-face conversation in New Mexico, as in most one-party states, because federal law also permits a participant's recording. Recording other people's private conversations is still a federal crime.
What One-Party Consent Does NOT Allow
Even with one-party consent, there are limits on audio recording in New Mexico:
- You cannot tap a phone line to record a conversation between two other people. You must be a party to the call or have consent from at least one participant. The same goes for secretly recording a private in-person conversation between other people, which federal law makes a felony.
- You cannot use intercepted audio for blackmail or extortion. Other criminal statutes apply to misuse of recordings.
- You cannot secretly film intimate areas. Viewing or recording someone's intimate areas without their knowledge and consent where they expect privacy, such as in bathrooms or locker rooms, violates N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-9-20 (voyeurism).
Recording Phone Calls in New Mexico
Personal Phone Calls
You can record any personal phone call you participate in under New Mexico's one-party consent rule. This applies to:
- Cell phone calls
- Landline calls
- VoIP calls through Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, or similar platforms
- Video call audio (FaceTime, WhatsApp video, etc.)
- Calls made through messaging apps like Signal or Telegram
You do not need to play a beep tone, announce the recording, or get permission from the other party. Being a participant in the call satisfies the consent requirement.
The "Telegraph or Telephone" Language
New Mexico's statute specifically references "telegraph or telephone line, wire, cable or instrument." This language predates modern wireless technology. Some legal scholars argue it may not cover purely wireless cellular communications that never travel over a physical wire.
Courts in New Mexico have not definitively ruled on whether the statute extends to all wireless communications. As a practical matter, treat all phone and electronic audio communications as requiring one-party consent. This approach keeps you on the safe side of the law regardless of how courts eventually interpret the statutory language.
Business Phone Call Recording
New Mexico businesses can record audio of phone calls for quality assurance, training, compliance, and dispute resolution. An employee who participates in the call provides the necessary one-party consent. Many businesses still announce recording as a best practice, using phrases like "This call may be recorded for quality assurance purposes."
The FCC has no current rules on recording phone calls; recording is governed by state wiretap laws and the federal Wiretap Act. Telemarketing calls are separately regulated under the TCPA.
Interstate Phone Calls
When you are in New Mexico calling someone in another state, the recording laws of both states may apply. If the other person is in an all-party consent state, it is unsettled which state's law governs: some courts apply the law of the place where the recording is made, but in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney (2006) the California Supreme Court applied California's all-party rule to an out-of-state firm's calls with California clients only going forward, applying Georgia law to damages for past calls. The safest course is to get everyone's consent.
States with stricter audio recording rules:
- California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington require all-party consent.
- Nevada is functionally all-party for phone calls under Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.620 as read in Lane v. Allstate Insurance Co., 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998), and reaffirmed in Ditech Financial v. Buckles (Nev. 2017).
- Connecticut is criminally one-party but exposes you to civil liability for recording a phone call without all-party consent under Conn. Gen. Stat. section 52-570d.
- Oregon is one-party for phone calls, but for in-person conversations and video calls ORS 165.540 requires that all participants be specifically informed that the conversation is being recorded.
- Delaware's status is contested between its wiretap and privacy statutes.
If you regularly record phone call audio with people in these states, the safest approach is to inform all parties or get explicit consent before recording.
Recording In-Person Audio in New Mexico
When Audio Recording Is Legal
Because New Mexico's wiretapping statute only covers "telegraph or telephone" communications, in-person audio recording operates in a space that favors the recorder. You can record face-to-face audio in New Mexico when:
- You are a direct participant in the conversation
- You are in a public place where no reasonable expectation of privacy exists
- You are on your own property and either take part in the conversation or the speakers have no reasonable expectation of privacy
If you are not part of the conversation, the state wiretapping statute does not reach it, but federal law does: secretly recording a private in-person conversation without a participant's consent is a federal felony under 18 U.S.C. § 2511, punishable by up to five years. Other laws may also restrict your ability to record.
When In-Person Audio Recording May Be Restricted
Although the state wiretapping statute does not cover face-to-face audio, federal law and other New Mexico laws may apply:
- Federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) makes it a felony to secretly record a private in-person conversation you are not part of unless a participant consents.
- Voyeurism laws (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-9-20) prohibit viewing or recording a person's intimate areas without their knowledge and consent where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in bathrooms and changing rooms. The statute covers visual recording, so audio captured alongside such video adds to the legal risk.
- Trespass laws prohibit recording on private property without permission to be on the premises.
- Harassment and stalking laws may apply if recording is part of a pattern of behavior intended to harass or intimidate someone.
- Unauthorized distribution of sensitive images (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-37A-1) makes it a crime to share intimate recordings without consent with intent to harass, humiliate, or intimidate the person or cause them substantial emotional distress.
Recording Audio in Your Own Home
You can record audio of conversations you take part in at your own home. The state wiretapping statute does not cover in-person conversations, but federal law bars secretly recording private conversations among others, such as guests or family members, when you are not part of them and no participant consents. You should also avoid:
- Recording guests in bathrooms or bedrooms where they have a privacy expectation
- Recording intimate activities without consent
- Using recordings for illegal purposes like blackmail or harassment
Types of Audio Communications Under New Mexico Law
Wire Communications
Wire communications include traditional telephone calls, cell phone calls, and any audio communication that travels over a wire, cable, or similar connection. New Mexico's one-party consent rule under § 30-12-1 governs all wire communications.
Oral Communications
Oral communications are spoken, face-to-face conversations. Under New Mexico law, these are not covered by the wiretapping statute. This is a significant departure from most other states, where oral communications are explicitly included in wiretapping laws. Federal law does cover them: the Wiretap Act protects oral communications made with a justified expectation of privacy, so a participant may record, but an outsider may not without a participant's consent.
The New Mexico Legislature has not amended the statute to extend coverage to oral communications, and the language remains focused on telegraph and telephone transmissions.
Electronic Communications
Electronic communications include emails, text messages, instant messages, and data transmissions. While New Mexico's wiretapping statute may not explicitly address all forms of electronic communication, the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) provides a parallel framework that covers these communications under a one-party consent standard.
Penalties for Illegal Audio Recording in New Mexico
Criminal Penalties Under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1
Illegal interception of telephone or wire audio communications is a misdemeanor in New Mexico:
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Jail | Maximum Fine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interference with communications | Misdemeanor | 364 days | $1,000 |
| Physical interference with communication lines | Misdemeanor | 364 days | $1,000 |
New Mexico's penalties are notably lighter than many other states. For comparison, the federal Wiretap Act carries up to 5 years in prison for willful violations, and neighboring states impose felony-level penalties.
Civil Liability Under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-11
Victims of illegal audio interception can sue under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-11 for:
- Actual damages suffered as a result of the illegal interception
- Liquidated damages of $100 per day of violation, or $1,000, whichever is greater
- Punitive damages
- Reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs
A civil lawsuit can be filed regardless of whether the defendant has been convicted of a criminal offense. A defendant who relied in good faith on a court order has a complete defense to both civil and criminal liability.
Federal Penalties
The federal Wiretap Act (18 U.S.C. § 2511) also applies to audio recordings in New Mexico. Federal law lets a party to a phone call or in-person conversation, or someone with a party's consent, record it, unless the recording is made for the purpose of committing a crime or a tort. Unlike New Mexico's statute, it covers in-person oral communications. Federal penalties include:
- Up to 5 years in federal prison for willful violations
- Civil damages including actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees
- Under 18 U.S.C. § 2520, a court may award the greater of actual damages plus the violator's profits or statutory damages of $100 a day or $10,000, whichever is higher
Using Audio Recordings as Evidence in New Mexico
Admissibility Standards
A lawful recording you made as a participant is generally admissible in criminal and civil courts if it is authenticated and meets the ordinary rules of evidence. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-8 deals with court-ordered wiretaps: it requires that each party receive the court order before such intercepts are used, and it lets an aggrieved person move to suppress a communication that was unlawfully intercepted.
Courts evaluate audio recordings based on:
- Authentication: Can you prove the recording is genuine and has not been altered?
- Relevance: Does the recording relate to an issue in the case?
- Hearsay rules: Some recorded statements may be excluded unless an exception applies.
- Prejudicial vs. probative value: Under Rule 11-403 NMRA, a court may exclude the recording if the danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs its probative value.
Best Practices for Preserving Audio Recordings
To maximize the evidentiary value of your audio recordings:
- Use a reliable recording device or app with clear audio quality.
- Do not edit, splice, or alter the recording in any way.
- Back up the recording immediately to cloud storage and a separate device.
- Note the date, time, location, and participants as soon as possible after recording.
- Store the recording securely and protect it from accidental deletion.
- Provide the recording to your attorney as early as possible in any legal proceedings.
Illegally Obtained Audio Recordings
Audio recordings made in violation of New Mexico's wiretapping law can be kept out of court: an aggrieved person may move to suppress an unlawfully intercepted communication under § 30-12-8(B). Using an illegally obtained recording can also expose you to both criminal prosecution and civil liability.
Common Audio Recording Scenarios in New Mexico
Can I Audio Record My Landlord?
Yes. You may record in-person conversations you have with your landlord: the state wiretapping statute does not cover face-to-face audio, and federal law allows a participant to record. Phone calls with your landlord require one-party consent, which you satisfy as a participant. Recording is useful for documenting verbal agreements about repairs, lease disputes, or instances of harassment.
Can I Audio Record My Doctor?
Yes. You can record audio of your medical appointments. As a participant, you may record face-to-face appointments: the state wiretapping statute does not cover them, and federal law allows a participant's recording. For telemedicine calls, one-party consent applies and your participation satisfies it. Many patients find this helpful for remembering treatment instructions and documenting informed consent discussions.
Can I Audio Record My Boss at Work?
Yes. Under New Mexico law, you can record audio of workplace conversations you participate in. For in-person conversations you take part in, no one else's consent is needed. Phone calls with your employer require one-party consent, which you provide by being a participant. Be aware that your employer may have internal policies against recording, and violating those policies could result in disciplinary action even though the recording itself is legal.
Can I Audio Record Government Officials?
Yes. You can record audio of conversations with government employees you participate in. New Mexico's Open Meetings Act (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 10-15-1) also requires that reasonable efforts be made to accommodate audio and video recording devices during open meetings.
Can I Audio Record My Ex-Spouse or Co-Parent?
Yes, during conversations you are part of. For in-person conversations you take part in, New Mexico's wiretapping statute imposes no consent requirement and federal law allows a participant to record. Phone calls require one-party consent. However, do not record your children's private conversations without being present, and do not use children to secretly record the other parent.
Audio Recording Technology and New Mexico Law
Smartphones and Recording Apps
Using your smartphone's built-in voice recorder or a third-party recording app is legal in New Mexico for both in-person and telephone audio. Popular options include the native voice memo apps on iOS and Android, as well as dedicated call recording apps. The choice of technology does not change the legal analysis.
AI Voice Recorders and Wearable Devices
AI-powered voice recorders that transcribe and summarize conversations are legal to use in New Mexico. Wearable recorders can capture face-to-face conversations you take part in without others' consent, but recording private conversations among other people when you are not part of them, such as by leaving the device running, can violate federal law. For phone calls made through the device, one-party consent applies and your participation satisfies it.
Digital Recording vs. Analog Recording
New Mexico's statute does not distinguish between digital and analog recording methods. Whether you use a digital recorder, a smartphone app, or an older analog tape recorder, the same legal rules apply. New Mexico courts have not decided how far the statute's "telegraph or telephone" language reaches modern wireless and internet calls, so treat every call as covered by the one-party rule.
More New Mexico Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
Back to New Mexico Recording Laws
More New Mexico Recording Topics
More New Mexico Laws
- New Mexico AI Meeting Recording Laws
- New Mexico Dashcam Laws
- New Mexico Data Privacy Laws
- New Mexico Deepfake Laws
- New Mexico Employee Monitoring Laws
- New Mexico GPS Tracking Laws
- New Mexico Police Bodycam Laws
- New Mexico Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to audio record a conversation in New Mexico without the other person knowing?
Yes. For phone calls, New Mexico is a one-party consent state under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1, so you can record as a participant without telling anyone. For in-person conversations, the state wiretapping statute does not apply and federal law lets a participant record, so you may record a face-to-face conversation you take part in. Secretly recording a private conversation you are not part of, without a participant's consent, is a federal crime.
Can I record a phone call in New Mexico?
Yes. You can record any phone call you participate in without announcing the recording or getting the other person's permission. This applies to landline, cell phone, and VoIP calls. For interstate calls to all-party consent states, it is unsettled which state's law applies, so the safest course is to get everyone's consent.
What is the penalty for illegal audio recording in New Mexico?
Illegal interception of telephone audio is a misdemeanor under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1, carrying up to 364 days in jail and fines. Civil liability under § 30-12-11 includes minimum damages of $100 per day or $1,000 (whichever is greater), plus punitive damages and attorney fees.
Does New Mexico require consent to record in-person conversations?
Not under state law. New Mexico's wiretapping statute only covers telegraph and telephone communications, so it does not address face-to-face conversations. Federal law does: a participant may record, but secretly recording a private conversation you are not part of without a participant's consent is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2511. Voyeurism and other laws may also apply in private settings.
Can audio recordings be used as evidence in New Mexico courts?
Yes. A lawful recording you made as a participant is generally admissible under the ordinary rules of evidence. The recording must be authenticated as genuine and unaltered. Under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-8(B), an unlawfully intercepted communication may be suppressed on motion.
Updates
Corrected the description of the unfair-prejudice rule (Rule 11-403 NMRA) and noted that Kearney applied California law to out-of-state calls only going forward.
We corrected the statement that in-person audio needs no consent (federal law still bars secretly recording a private conversation you are not part of), noted that the interstate-call choice-of-law question is unsettled, corrected the federal participant exception and damages, removed a reference to nonexistent FCC call-recording rules, corrected what NMSA 30-12-8 does, and narrowed the voyeurism and sensitive-images descriptions to their actual elements.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected our summary of Oregon law: Oregon allows one-party recording of phone calls, but in-person conversations and video calls require that every participant be informed.
Corrected the reporter citation and year for Lane v. Allstate Insurance Co. to 969 P.2d 938 (Nev. 1998).
Reconciled the interstate all-party-consent state list with the hub and phone-calls guides, adding hedged notes for Nevada, Connecticut, Oregon, and Delaware, and corrected the misdemeanor jail-time figure from 'up to 1 year' to the statute's actual cap of 364 days.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
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, § 30-12-2
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.
Also relied on in: New Mexico Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), New Mexico Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules, New Mexico Dashcam Laws: Windshield Mounting, Audio, and Evidence Rules (2026)
§ 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.
Also relied on in: New Mexico Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Guide (2026), New Mexico AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), New Mexico Ring Doorbell Laws: What You Need to Know in 2026
§ 30-12-2Grounds for order of interceptionIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
An ex parte order for wiretapping, eavesdropping or the interception of any wire or oral communication may be issued by any judge of a district court upon application of the attorney general or a district attorney, stating that there is probable cause to believe that: A. evidence may be obtained of the commission of: (1) the crime of murder, kidnapping, extortion, robbery, trafficking or distribution of controlled substances or bribery of a witness; (2) the crime of burglary, aggravated burglary, criminal sexual penetration, arson, mayhem, receiving stolen property or commercial gambling, if punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; or (3) an organized criminal conspiracy to commit any of the aforementioned crimes; or B. the communication, conversation or discussion is itself an element of any of the above specified crimes.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2018
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Knight (New Mexico Court of Appeals 2000, 128 N.M. 591)“…p is controlled by the New Mexico Abuse of Privacy Act. See NMSA 1978, §§ 30-12-2 to 30-12-6 (1973, as amended through 19…”
- State v. Moten (New Mexico Court of Appeals 2018)“…mmunications, pursuant to the 16 Abuse of Privacy Act. See NMSA 1978, Section 30-12-2 to -11 (1973, as amended 17 through 19…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 30-12-8Use of contents as evidence; disclosure; motion to suppress.In forcecited in 4 of our articles
A. The contents of any intercepted wire or oral communication or evidence derived therefrom shall not be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing or other proceeding in a state court unless each party, not less than ten days before the trial, hearing or proceeding has been furnished with a copy of the court order and accompanying application, under which interception was authorized or approved. This ten-day period may be waived by the court if it finds that it was not possible to furnish the party with such information ten days before the trial, hearing or proceeding, and that the party will not be prejudiced by the delay in receiving such information. B.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1991
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Trevino (New Mexico Court of Appeals 1991, 113 N.M. 804)“…fendant has raised no issue concerning the applicability of NMSA 1978, Section 30-12-8 (Repl.Pamp.1984) in the instant case.…”
- State v. Manes (New Mexico Court of Appeals 1991, 112 N.M. 161)“…p information at least ten days prior to the hearing. See NMSA 1978, § 30-12-8(A) (Repl.Pamp. 1984). This delay should…”
- State v. Anderson (New Mexico Court of Appeals 1989, 110 N.M. 382)“…ppressed pursuant to the district court’s interpretation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-12-8(A) (Repl.Pamp.1984). We reverse.…”
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 14 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.
Also relied on in: New Mexico Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: § 30-9-20 Penalties (2026), New Mexico Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Is Blackmail Illegal in New Mexico? Extortion Laws and Penalties
§ 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.
Also relied on in: New Mexico Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Rights for Renters and Landlords (2026), New Mexico Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights and HIPAA Rules (2026), New Mexico Security Camera Laws: Home, Business, and HOA Rules (2026)
New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, Chapter 10
§ 10-15-1Formation of public policy; procedures for open meetings; exceptions and procedures for closed meetings.In forcecited in 10 of our articles
A. In recognition of the fact that a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate, it is declared to be public policy of this state that all persons are entitled to the greatest possible information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those officers and employees who represent them. The formation of public policy or the conduct of business by vote shall not be conducted in closed meeting. All meetings of any public body except the legislature and the courts shall be public meetings, and all persons so desiring shall be permitted to attend and listen to the deliberations and proceedings. Reasonable efforts shall be made to accommodate the use of audio and video recording devices. B.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at nmonesource.com
Cited in 44 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Anaya v. City of Albuquerque (New Mexico Court of Appeals 1996, 122 N.M. 326)“…eged private meetings between April 1990 and February 1991. NMSA 1978, §§ 10-15-1 to -4 (Repl.Pamp.1995). See generally G…”
- Chavez v. City of Albuquerque (New Mexico Court of Appeals 1997, 124 N.M. 479)“…ess of law), and violations of the Open Meetings Act (OMA), NMSA 1978, §§ 10-15-1 to -4 (1974) in the promulgation of the…”
- Trujillo v. Gonzales (New Mexico Supreme Court 1987, 106 N.M. 620)“…meeting held in accordance with the Open Meetings Act. See NMSA 1978, §§ 10-15-1 to 10-15-4 (Repl.Pamp.1983). Although S…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: New Mexico Public Recording Laws: Filming Rights in Public Spaces (2026), New Mexico School Recording Laws: Students, Parents, and Teacher Rights (2026), New Mexico Video Recording Laws: Surveillance, Filming, and Consent Rules (2026)
Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 165: Offenses Involving Fraud or Deception
§ 165.540Obtaining contents of communicationsIn forcecited in 49 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 or 133.726 or subsections (2) to (8) of this section, a person may not: (a) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a telecommunication or a radio communication to which the person is not a participant, by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, unless consent is given by at least one participant. (b) Tamper with the wires, connections, boxes, fuses, circuits, lines or any other equipment or facilities of a telecommunication or radio communication company over which messages are transmitted, with the intent to obtain unlawfully the contents of a telecommunication or radio communication to which the person is not a participant. (c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 76 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Fleetwood (2000) applied ORS 165.540 to body wire evidence, holding that words spoken into a telephone are a telecommunication under subsection (1)(a) and that the (5)(a)(B) exception fails unless the officer or the officer's agent shares reciprocally in the conversation, so the recordings were inadmissible.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Klein (Oregon Supreme Court 2012, 352 Or. 302)“…eing 3 recorded. Conversations recorded in violation of ORS 165.540 are not admissible in 4 court excep…”
- North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Oliver (Oregon Supreme Court 1979, 286 Or. 639)✓A lumber wholesaler secretly monitored traders' calls; on de novo review the court said the practice may have violated ORS 165.540 but refused to rest unclean hands on it, since the ex-employee's calls were never monitored. The employer's noncompete suit failed on other grounds.
- State v. Fleetwood (Oregon Supreme Court 2000, 331 Or. 511)✓A detective wired an informant and recorded the suspect's side of a phone call and his talks with his mother and a juvenile seller; the court held those interceptions violated ORS 165.540(1)(a) and (1)(c) because the informant was not a participant, and upheld suppression.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Can You Record ICE Agents? Know Your Rights by State (2026), Is Plaud HIPAA Compliant? Kind Of. Here's What to Know (2026)
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 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 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can I Record My Boss Harassing Me? State-by-State Legal Guide (2026), Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?, Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026)
§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 130 of our articles
Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 860 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walker v. Darby (1990) held a 2520 plaintiff need not prove the contents of intercepted conversations, only interception and a justified expectation against it. Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) barred 2520 damages against defendants who took no part in the interception, obtained the tape lawfully, and disclosed a matter of public concern.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573)✓A postal letter carrier said three supervisors wired an intercom near his workstation to listen in. Reversing summary judgment, the Eleventh Circuit held a section 2520 plaintiff can show interception without proving the contents of specific conversations.
- Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41)“…disclosure, or use is entitled to recover civil damages, 18 U. S. C. § 2520 . Title III also bars the use as eviden…”
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)“…7 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(4), or alternatively, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (a), or alternatively, for violations o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: How to Detect and Block Listening Devices in Your Home (2026), Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026), Otter.ai Faces Consolidated Wiretap Class Action Over Its AI Meeting Notetaker and All-Party Consent
Sources and References
- N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1(nmonesource.com).gov
- New Mexico Legislature(nmlegis.gov).gov
- FCC Recording Guide(fcc.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 2511(law.cornell.edu)
- N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-11 - Right of Privacy; Damages(law.justia.com)
- N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-8 - Use of Contents as Evidence(law.justia.com)
- N.M. Stat. Ann. § 10-15-1 - Open Meetings Act(law.justia.com)
- Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 165, ORS 165.535 and 165.540(oregonlegislature.gov).gov