Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privacy And Domestic Violence topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers narrow wiretap exemption for domestic‑violence and similar crimes
Summary
HB 587 would create a limited exemption to New Hampshire’s all‑party consent wiretapping statute to allow victims to record suspected domestic violence and related crimes and use those recordings for law‑enforcement reports and court proceedings; advocates, prosecutors and police described drafting trade‑offs.
Representative Matt Sabour introduced HB 587 as a narrow exemption to allow any person (except law‑enforcement acting in their official capacity) to make or possess an audio or audio‑video recording if the recording is provided to a law‑enforcement agency or used in court and the recorder reasonably believes the content shows a crime or constitutes domestic violence.
Supporters framed the measure as a narrowly drawn safety tool. Representative Jody Newell read testimony from a former legislator and survivor who described difficulty producing evidence of abuse. Pamela Keilig of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence said the governor’s commission on domestic violence and other stakeholders helped craft the language and that victims have faced punishment for recording abusive acts under the current law. She urged the committee to vote OTP, saying victims should not be penalized for documenting abuse.
Assistant County Attorney Steven Andrews, who served on the drafting subcommittee, explained drafting choices: the exemption intentionally excludes law enforcement acting in an official capacity (to avoid authorizing warrantless police surveillance), allows use in court proceedings, and uses a "reasonably believes" standard so survivors need not prove legal elements before recording. He also noted the statutory controversy is mainly about audio (oral communications), because video without audio is not covered by NH’s wiretapping statute.
Law‑enforcement witnesses were generally supportive. Chief and patrol witnesses said officers want tools that preserve evidence and help prosecutions; one police chief testified that recordings can be life‑saving evidence during exigent incidents. Some committee members and witnesses asked whether the bill should restrict downstream public sharing (social media) of recordings; proponents said the bill’s core purpose is to protect admissibility and the ability to present evidence to police and courts, and that further limits could be considered in drafting.
Opponents raised concerns about scope and possible misuse. Committee members asked whether to limit the exemption to violent crimes or to specify other categories (child abuse, kidnapping). Witnesses noted existing differences among states (most are one‑party consent) and expressed a preference for narrowly focused statutory language to protect victims while limiting unintended public dissemination.
No committee vote occurred. The sponsor and proponents said they would work with the committee on precise drafting (definition of "reasonably believes," limits on public dissemination, and how the exemption interacts with body‑worn and doorbell cameras).
