Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privacy And Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representative: proposed civil remedy for backyard video surveillance after constituent complaint
Summary
Representative from Merrimack County introduced HB 462 after a constituent reported a neighbor’s fixed camera installed on a property line watching into the backyard; sponsors and police urged a narrowly crafted civil remedy to allow owners to seek relief.
Representative Henry Gerson and the prime sponsor described HB 462 as a civil‑law response to a constituent complaint in a rural Merrimack County neighborhood where a newly installed camera on a post at the property line pointed into a next‑door backyard and pool area.
Sponsor testimony described attempts to resolve the dispute informally and a police response that said the municipality lacked recourse because the device was on the neighbor’s private property. Sponsor materials and a diagram were presented to show how a fixed camera placed on a post could record backyard activities that neighbors reasonably expect to be private.
Committee members raised drafting questions about scope and intent. Representatives queried whether the bill would apply to incidental views (for example, a camera capturing part of an adjacent lot) or distant cameras with high optical zoom; they also asked whether the bill should address drones. Representative Henry Gerson warned that language must focus on purposeful, mounted imaging devices aimed at a private backyard rather than innocuous, legible views from adjacent lots, and suggested the courts should focus on the owner’s reasonable expectation of privacy.
Law‑enforcement testimony in favor noted local chiefs had supported the sponsor earlier and that victims should have a civil cause of action to seek relief rather than no remedy at all. Members asked OLS and drafters to refine statutory terms such as "backyard," "adjoining," and "recreational activities" to reduce ambiguity.
No committee vote was taken; sponsors asked staff to provide clearer drafting to distinguish surveillance mounted and targeted at neighbors from ordinary, incidental recording.
