New Mexico Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent

New Mexico is a one-party consent state for phone calls: its interference-with-communications law prohibits copying a telephone message "without the consent of a sender or intended recipient," so either person on the call can record it. Violations are misdemeanors, and the person recorded can bring a civil suit.

New Mexico's statute is old and written in telegraph-era language, and it does not cover in-person conversations at all. For a business, the practical rule is simple: you can record your own calls, and announcing it covers callers from stricter states.

This is general information, not legal advice.

New Mexico recording law at a glance

Question	Answer in New Mexico
Consent rule for phone calls	One party (sender or intended recipient)
Main statute	N.M. Stat. § 30-12-1 (interference with communications)
In-person conversations	Not covered by § 30-12-1 (State v. Hogervorst)
Criminal penalty	Misdemeanor
Civil remedy	§ 30-12-11, even without a conviction
Recorded notice	Sufficient (State v. Johnson, 2010)

What the statute says

N.M. Stat. § 30-12-1 defines interference with communications as knowingly and without lawful authority doing any of several things, including:

• B. cutting, tapping or making any connection with a telephone line or instrument belonging to another without the owner's consent;
• 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"; and
• E. using any apparatus to do any of those acts.

Whoever commits interference with communications is guilty of a misdemeanor, subject to listed exceptions, including law enforcement acting with a party's consent.

Subsection C is the recording rule. Because consent from "a sender or intended recipient" is enough, a participant may record.

Cellphones and wireless calls

According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), the statute's references to telegraph and telephone lines leave some question whether it reaches wireless communications, and New Mexico courts have not resolved it. Businesses should assume their calls are covered and follow the one-party rule regardless. Federal law, which is also one-party, applies to wireless calls.

In-person conversations

In State v. Hogervorst (1977), the Court of Appeals held that subsection C applies to telephone and telegraph messages, not to a face-to-face conversation transmitted by a device hidden on one of the participants. New Mexico's statute therefore does not govern in-person recording. Federal wiretap law, which covers oral communications with an expectation of privacy, still applies.

What New Mexico courts have said

Justia's annotations to § 30-12-1 collect several useful decisions:

Case	Holding
State v. Johnson (N.M. 2010)	Recording jail calls did not violate § 30-12-1 when a message told both parties the call may be recorded and monitored
State v. Templeton (N.M. Ct. App. 2007)	Without actual notice, talking in code did not show implied consent to monitoring
Robison v. Katz (N.M. Ct. App. 1980)	The legislature did not intend to criminalize letting someone listen on an extension
State v. Arnold (N.M. Ct. App. 1979)	A person who voluntarily converses takes the risk the other party may record or transmit it
Templin v. Mountain Bell (N.M. Ct. App. 1982)	A civil action under § 30-12-11 is available whether or not there is a criminal conviction

Johnson and Templeton together show what notice should look like: an actual message that both parties hear, not an assumption that they guessed.

Penalties

Interference with communications under § 30-12-1 is a misdemeanor. Disclosure is not separately listed, but according to the RCFP, the New Mexico Supreme Court in State v. Arnold (1980) read the consent requirement to apply to disclosure too. Do not publish recorded calls without a party's consent.

Civil liability

N.M. Stat. § 30-12-11 provides a civil cause of action against anyone who intercepts, discloses or uses communications without lawful authority. According to the RCFP, a plaintiff can recover the greater of actual damages, $100 a day for each day of violation, or $1,000, plus punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs.

Calls between New Mexico and neighboring states

Neighbor	Rule for phone calls
Arizona	One-party
Colorado	One-party
Utah	One-party
Oklahoma	One-party
Texas	One-party

New Mexico's neighbors are all one-party states. Tourism, film and national laboratory work bring many callers from California, Washington and other all-party states, and Nevada is all-party for phone calls too. Read interstate call recording consent and see the state-by-state table.

Three New Mexico scenarios

A Santa Fe gallery records calls with collectors after a greeting notice. The gallery is a party, and every caller heard the notice, as in Johnson. Collectors in California are covered too.

An Albuquerque landlord taps a tenant's landline to listen to calls. The landlord is neither sender nor recipient. That is interference with communications, a misdemeanor, and the tenant can sue under § 30-12-11.

A Las Cruces manager hides a recorder in a conference room. New Mexico's § 30-12-1 does not cover in-person talks, but federal wiretap law and privacy claims can. Do not do it.

What this means for New Mexico businesses

Tourism and hospitality

Hotels, tour operators and ski areas take calls from all over. Announce recordings on every call.

Contractors and home services

Recorded calls help settle disputes about scope and price. Record openly, keep originals and store them centrally.

Employees

A signed recording policy documents consent on your side and avoids disputes over monitoring.

Extensions and shared lines

New Mexico's courts have been practical about everyday phone use. In Robison v. Katz, the Court of Appeals said the legislature did not mean to make a crime of letting someone listen on an extension. That is about a participant letting another person listen, not about recording a line you are not part of. Businesses with shared lines or speakerphones should still tell callers who is listening and whether the call is recorded, both for courtesy and because callers in other states may be protected by stricter rules.

New Mexico recording checklist

• Recording notice that both parties hear on recorded inbound calls
• Spoken notice on outbound recorded calls
• Signed employee recording and monitoring policy
• No tapping or recording of calls you are not party to
• No hidden recorders in meetings
• Recordings not published without a party's consent
• Access controls and retention schedule

Wording is in call recording disclosure scripts.

Recording calls in New Mexico with Callata

With recording turned on, Callata plays "This call may be recorded." to both sides as the call connects, inbound and outbound, the kind of notice New Mexico's Supreme Court accepted in Johnson. Recordings are transcribed and summarized with sentiment and action items on the contact's history. Callata's terms keep consent-law compliance with you. Plans start at $99 a month with five users included and $20 for each additional user, and recording is part of the plan. Sign up.