Panel divided as sponsor seeks to make hands‑free phone law a secondary offense

Lede: The House Transportation Committee considered HB 411 on Feb. 17, a measure from Rep. Ellen Reed that would make use of a mobile electronic device while driving a secondary offense, requiring officers to cite an accompanying moving violation before ticketing for electronic‑device use.

Nut graf: Reed told the panel a recent court decision narrowed enforcement of New Hampshire’s hands‑free law and that treating device use as a secondary offense would let officers link observed distracted conduct to a separate driving violation. Law‑enforcement and highway‑safety witnesses warned the change would reduce deterrence and complicate enforcement.

Rep. Ellen Reed opened her testimony by describing a recent judicial decision that struck down part of the state’s hands‑free prohibition as overly broad. She said the bill would create a secondary‑offense standard that requires a traffic infraction or evidence of unsafe driving for an officer to issue a device‑use citation. Reed framed the idea as a narrow, enforceable way to preserve police discretion while addressing the court’s ruling.

Law‑enforcement testimony: Lieutenant Chris Storm of the New Hampshire State Police opposed the bill. He said distracted driving is a leading cause of fatal crashes and told the committee that officers need a strong, primary‑offense statute to address risky behavior. “If you are actively doing something that is distracting, it is absolutely under that negligent driving statute,” Storm said, but added the current hands‑free law gives prosecutors and patrol officers a clearer enforcement tool.

Safety and industry groups also opposed the bill. Dan Goodman of AAA Northern New England cited AAA Foundation research showing a substantial increase in crash risk from any cell‑phone use and warned of a “hangover effect” — mental distraction that persists after phone use. He told lawmakers that making the law secondary would weaken the enforcement leg of a three‑part safety approach that relies on law, education, and enforcement.

Jim Moody of the New Hampshire Motorcycle Rights Organization and Dan Bennett of the New Hampshire Auto Dealers Association urged rejection, citing road‑safety consequences. Bennett noted the inspection/recall system’s role in getting safety defects corrected and cited the fiscal note and vehicle‑safety implications. The New Hampshire Department of Transportation said it had no position but described cognitive distraction concerns.

Supporters: Reed and some witnesses said the bill responds to a court decision that criminalized benign behaviors (for example, holding a phone that is not in use) and creates a way for officers to connect device use with observable dangerous driving. Reed said the change would give officers “leeway to say, okay, you're doing something you shouldn't be doing and also I saw you potentially distracted.”

Ending: The committee closed the public hearing after receiving testimony from state police, AAA, dealer and motorcycle groups and DOT representatives. Members signaled the issue requires further study of enforcement tradeoffs and the court’s decision; witnesses recommended alternatives including clearer statutory language rather than wholesale weakening. No vote was taken at the hearing.