New Hampshire has only one enacted drone-specific statute. The rest of the state's drone-related enforcement relies on general privacy and criminal statutes that apply broadly, not just to drones.
| Restriction | Statute | Penalty |
|---|
| Drone surveillance of hunters/fishers without written consent | RSA 207:57 | Violation-level offense (similar to traffic ticket) |
| Invasion of privacy via recording device (including drones) | RSA 644:9 | Class A misdemeanor: up to 1 year jail + $2,000 fine |
| Launching/landing drones in state parks | DNCR policy (not statute) | Park violation, citation |
Warning: RSA 644:9 is not drone-specific, but it directly applies to drones used for voyeurism or unauthorized recording. If the recording is used for blackmail or distributed without consent, charges escalate to a Class B felony with longer prison sentences and higher fines.
The hunter/fisher surveillance rule (RSA 207:57)
This is New Hampshire's only enacted drone-specific law. It prohibits using any drone or UAV to conduct video surveillance of private citizens who are lawfully hunting, fishing, or trapping without obtaining written consent before the surveillance. Law enforcement officers and NH Fish and Game personnel are exempt when acting in their official duties.
The penalty is a violation-level offense, roughly equivalent to a traffic ticket. It's a narrow law targeting a specific conflict between drone operators and outdoor recreationists, not a broad privacy statute.
Why NH has so few drone laws
New Hampshire has repeatedly tried and failed to pass broader drone legislation. HB 602 (2015) would have required law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before using drones for surveillance, with civil penalties up to $10,000 and evidence exclusion rules. It passed the House but never became law. HB 434 (2024) and HB 644 (2025) both attempted to create a drone permit system for state parks. Both were marked "Inexpedient to Legislate" and died in committee.
The practical effect is that New Hampshire has no law enforcement warrant requirement for drone surveillance, no critical infrastructure protections specific to drones, and no formal permit system for state parks. Pilots who fly within FAA rules face minimal state-level regulatory exposure.
Real enforcement: DHART helicopter delay (2023)
In August 2023, a woman was seriously injured in a motorcycle crash in Mason, NH. A DHART (Dartmouth-Hitchcock Advanced Response Team) medical helicopter was dispatched to Mascenic High School as a landing zone. As the helicopter prepared to take off with the patient, a drone appeared flying above the landing zone. The DHART pilot refused to take off until the drone was cleared, causing a 10 to 15 minute delay. New Ipswich Police located the drone pilot as they were landing their drone.
No public record of charges being filed was reported, but the incident became a catalyst for renewed legislative efforts. HB 644 (2025) cited this type of incident as justification for comprehensive drone regulation. That bill also failed. The case illustrates both the real safety risks of careless flying and the state's reluctance to pass new drone laws.
For more on privacy law, see our drone spying laws guide and flying over private property guide.
