A Practical Guide to Taping Phone Calls and In-Person Conversations in the 50 States and D.C.

• Introduction

• State-by-state guide

• Tape-recording laws
  at a glance

• Consent and its limits

• Interstate phone calls

• Possession and
  publication

• The FCC’s role

• Cellular & cordless calls

• Citations to cases

New Mexico

The crime of “interfering with communication” involves knowingly and unlawfully tapping any connection that belongs to another without consent of the person owning, possessing, or controlling the property. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1(b). The crime also includes copying transmitted messages without consent, delaying the sending of any communication, or using any device to commit any of the prohibited acts. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1(b).

Whoever commits the crime of “interfering with communications” is guilty of a misdemeanor, unless the interference is: (1) By court order; (2) By the operator of a communications carrier switchboard operator in the course of his or her normal duty; or (3) Under color of law in the investigation of a crime. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1.

Any person whose right to privacy has been violated under the statute may sue for actual damages of $100 per day of violation or $1,000, whichever is higher. A person whose rights have been violated may also recover punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees, and court costs. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-12-1.

The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that the consent requirement in the statute refers to consent to the sending of the communication. Arnold v. New Mexico, 610 P.2d 1210, 1213 (N.M. 1980). A journalist should be sure to get consent to publish a recorded conversation, based on this authority. See id.