Stopping Someone From Repeatedly Posting Videos of You

Attorney Answer

A cease-and-desist letter has no legal force on its own — it is evidence, not an order. What gives you leverage in New Mexico is the pattern of repeated recording and posting, not the fact that you were filmed.

Start with a correction, because it changes what you should do. Recording someone in a public place is generally not by itself unlawful, so an answer built on "he needed my permission to record" will not hold up. Your case rests on repetition: recording you and your friends on multiple occasions, posting the videos, and continuing after you told him to stop.

The provision that fits those facts best is NMSA 1978 § 30-3A-2, harassment: knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that is intended to annoy, seriously alarm or terrorize another person and that serves no lawful purpose, where the conduct would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress. It is a misdemeanor. Your cease-and-desist letter is useful here in a way it is not elsewhere — it is dated proof he knew the conduct was unwelcome and continued anyway.

The stalking statute, NMSA 1978 § 30-3A-3, is the one people reach for first, and you should know its limit before you rely on it. It requires knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct, without lawful authority, directed at a specific individual, with the intent that the pattern place that individual in reasonable apprehension of death, bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement or restraint. A "pattern of conduct" means two or more acts, on more than one occasion, of following, monitoring, surveilling, threatening or communicating to or about a person — and repeated recording and posting satisfies that part. But the intent element is different. Posting videos, without more, may not establish an intent to make you fear physical harm, and that is the element most likely to defeat a stalking charge on these facts.

For a civil order telling him to stop, the Family Violence Protection Act, NMSA 1978 §§ 40-13-1 et seq., is the route — but only if you and he fall within a relationship the Act covers. Eligibility turns on the definitions of "domestic abuse" and "household member" in NMSA 1978 § 40-13-2. You describe a "somewhat personal relationship," which is exactly the fact that decides it, and nothing here tells us whether you dated, lived together, or are simply acquainted. Check § 40-13-2 against your actual relationship before counting on this. If you are not within a covered relationship, the Act gives you nothing, and you would be looking at an ordinary civil injunction plus the criminal harassment route.

What you can do

1. Build one file today: every URL, dated screenshots of each post and of the view counts, the dates and places you were recorded, your cease-and-desist letter, and proof of how and when you delivered it. 2. Take that file to the Albuquerque Police Department and ask them to evaluate a harassment charge under NMSA 1978 § 30-3A-2. Do not describe it as "he recorded me" — describe the pattern and the fact that he continued after being told to stop. 3. Go to the district court clerk and ask about an order of protection. Tell them exactly what your relationship to this person is, since NMSA 1978 § 40-13-2 is where eligibility is decided. 4. If you are not covered by the Family Violence Protection Act, ask about an ordinary civil injunction to stop the posting. 5. Report every post to the platform under its own harassment and nonconsensual-content rules. That is often the fastest actual removal, and it runs in parallel with everything else. 6. Keep recording new incidents in the same file. A pattern only helps you if it is documented.

⏱ Time limits apply. Criminal charges under NMSA 1978 § 30-3A-2 and § 30-3A-3 carry limitation periods, and civil claims have their own. How much time remains depends on the dates of the individual incidents, so date every entry in your log.