Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Body Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Body-camera retention and discovery bill draws concern over deadlines, privacy and law-enforcement incentives
Summary
House Bill 146 would require faster release and longer retention in some violation-level cases for body-worn camera recordings; prosecutors and some law-enforcement representatives told the committee the measure could create perverse incentives and conflict with existing RSA 105-D:2 retention/privacy rules.
Representative Mark Prue introduced House Bill 146 as a bill aimed at lengthening retention and requiring quicker disclosure of body-worn camera recordings in violation cases. The sponsor said the bill was intended to improve access to recording evidence in routine violation matters.
Testimony from prosecutors and law-enforcement officials urged caution. Assistant Merrimack County Attorney Steven Anderson said New Hampshire's existing body-worn-camera statute (RSA 105-D:2) already governs activation, retention and disclosure; that statute includes privacy protections and different retention periods depending on whether prosecutions are pending. Anderson said a patchwork of differing time frames could create perverse incentives: "If you're a police chief wondering whether to equip officers with cameras, being told you must release the recording within five days and risk dismissal if you don't could discourage adoption," he told the committee.
Sponsor Representative Mannion and supporters asked why a violation-level motor-vehicle stop should be treated with shorter deadlines than a more serious criminal case; prosecutors and the Department of Transportation representatives urged aligning any reform with the larger statutory review of body-camera rules, and noted Senate Bill 289 was also working on related issues.
Committee members discussed technical points: which types of cases would be covered (the bill as drafted applied to violations under RSA 265, the motor-vehicle code), how the bill would intersect with discovery rules in criminal cases, and whether dismissal-with-prejudice is an appropriate sanction for a disclosure failure. Several witnesses urged sending questions to a study or amendment process rather than enacting the bill as written.
Ending: Committee members indicated they wanted to await further work on a comprehensive statutory update to RSA 105-D:2 rather than adopt a stand-alone five-day rule for violations; no committee vote was held at the hearing.
