Bill would let people petition to have low‑level cannabis convictions annulled; law enforcement warns of workload and scope issues

House Bill 196 would change New Hampshire’s annulment procedures to allow people convicted of certain low-level cannabis offenses to request that the Department of Safety examine their arrest or conviction for possible annulment without the current $300 petition fee.

Sponsor Representative Wheelock framed HB 196 as a restorative measure: “This legislation would amend the statute to allow people to simply request that they can get an annulment hearing, without having to have the onerous $300 charge,” and said the change would remove a barrier to employment, military service and other opportunities for people with qualifying cannabis convictions.

Supporters’ case - Representative Wheelock and Dr. Joe Hannon described the bill as a fairness and reintegration measure that would let people clear records for low-level possession offenses (the sponsor described the targeted offenses as possession up to two ounces or 5 grams of hash in testimony) and noted the disproportionate long-term effects of past enforcement. - Wheelock told the committee that an earlier, broader version of the bill proposed automatic annulment for qualifying convictions but that the enacted, amended version creates a petition process and was revised with Judicial Council input; he said the measure passed the House (sponsor stated it passed unanimously in the most recent biennium after amendment work).

Law enforcement concerns about scope and workload - Major Bill Bright of the New Hampshire State Police and Lieutenant Derek Cataldo of the Manchester Police Department (speaking for the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police) opposed the bill on implementation grounds. They said the Department of Safety’s Criminal Records Division lacks resources to process what could be thousands of petitions and that the bill’s language is ambiguous about what records should be annulled (arrest, complaint, conviction or combined records). - Lieutenant Cataldo said the bill could allow petitions from cases that resulted from plea bargaining (for example cases pled down from larger offenses) and that current law requires a petitioner to prove eligibility under a narrower standard; the chiefs’ association said the expansion could “remove the consequences” of past law without individualized review.

Procedural and technical points raised in testimony - The Department of Safety witnesses asked for clarity about whether the agency should be the first recipient of petitions or whether petitions should proceed through the court system as under normal annulment practice; witnesses said the bill’s current wording could cause confusion about process and would likely require additional IT and staff resources. - Captain Victor Muzzy (Justice Information Bureau) explained that criminal-records practice distinguishes arrest, complaint and conviction records and that the bill as written lacks specificity about which records to annul.

Status and policy context - Sponsor Wheelock said an earlier biennium version of the bill had bipartisan House support and that the amended version this session had unanimous House approval after adjustments with Judicial Council counsel. - Supporters framed the bill as a limited, petition-driven path toward relief for people with low-level cannabis convictions; opponents recommended narrowing language and clarifying procedures to avoid large operational burdens on criminal-records staff.

Bottom line: HB 196 drew support as a second‑chance reform and drew law‑enforcement warnings about record-processing workload, statutory clarity and the need to align the petition process with normal court-driven annulment procedures.