A legal dispute involving State Representative Ellen Read has brought the absence of body camera and dashboard camera footage into sharp focus. Read is currently challenging charges stemming from two separate traffic stops in Rockingham County, one of which involved a deputy's accusation that she was driving 107 mph. The lawmaker asserts that both incidents violated a specific clause within the New Hampshire Constitution, which safeguards legislators while they are traveling to and from their official duties.
The lack of recorded video from either body cameras or dashboard cameras means there is no official visual record of the traffic stop that initiated this constitutional challenge concerning legislative immunity.
A spokesperson for the sheriff's office, identified as Bashaw, confirmed that deputies currently do not utilize body-worn or dashboard cameras. When asked about the equipment, Bashaw stated, "We don't have that either," adding that the sheriff's office is interested in equipping its deputies with this technology.
Body Camera Funding and Policy
In 2021, New Hampshire lawmakers established a dedicated Body-Worn and Dashboard Camera Fund. This fund is designed to offer matching grants to local law enforcement agencies, assisting them with the costs of purchasing cameras, as well as covering ongoing maintenance, replacement, and data storage expenses. All local law enforcement agencies across the state are eligible to apply for these grants.
While state law mandates that agencies choosing to deploy body cameras must adopt clear policies on when officers are required to record law enforcement interactions, including traffic stops, it does not compel agencies to acquire or use these cameras in the first place.
It remains unclear whether the Rockingham County Sheriff's Office has sought funding through this state grant program.
Representative Read has publicly stated her support for funding body cameras, even as she expresses reservations about other areas of law enforcement expenditure, such as military-grade equipment and high-cost vehicles.
She also contested the sheriff's office's assertion that she recorded a portion of the traffic stop on her personal cellphone.
"They are incorrect, I wish I had," Read stated. "The officers conveniently not wearing/using body cams are the reason that I'm investing in a dash cam."
According to Read, the sheriff's office misinterpreted the events of the stop. She clarified that she did not record the encounter herself, but a witness who was on a cellphone call during the incident later provided testimony in court.
Interpreting Legislative Protection
Read's argument posits that the constitutional provision is intended to prevent lawmakers from being delayed while en route to legislative responsibilities, rather than granting them immunity from prosecution.
"I admitted to the officer and in court that I was going about 85 miles an hour on the highway," she said.
She further explained that she was prepared to accept a speeding ticket but challenged the deputy's claim that she was traveling at 107 mph and operating her vehicle recklessly.
Lawrence Friedman, a professor at New England Law, noted that the constitutional provision has historical roots spanning centuries. Its original purpose, he explained, was to safeguard lawmakers from being impeded while carrying out their legislative duties, not to offer broad immunity from traffic stops or criminal charges.
Friedman also emphasized that the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision not to immediately hear Read's constitutional challenge should not be seen as a judgment on the merits of her argument.
"My understanding is that it's not that her appeal is denied," Friedman clarified. "The Supreme Court said no because they want to see how it plays out at the trial court."
Bashaw from the sheriff's office echoed this sentiment, suggesting the constitutional clause was designed to prevent law enforcement from interfering with legislative processes, not to shield elected officials from accountability for dangerous driving.
"The claim that you're immune from all types of arrests ... that'd be like saying you could drive at those speeds, commit a vehicular homicide, and that you are not allowed to be held accountable because you're traveling to and from session," Bashaw asserted.
Read acknowledged that the language of the constitutional provision could benefit from modernization while still retaining its fundamental intent.
"I did not write this constitutional provision ... it was written before cars existed," she remarked.