Record custodial interrogations? Bill divides prosecutors, police chiefs and innocence advocates

Senator Tim McHugh introduced Senate Bill 261, which would require recording custodial interrogations that occur in specified "places of detention," with a minimum requirement of audio recording and video where available. "A clear, indisputable record of an interrogation protects everyone," McHugh said, telling the committee that other states have adopted similar requirements and that recordings can preserve exact phrasing and tone.

Proponents included the Innocence Project and the New England Innocence Project, which said recordings reduce wrongful convictions and help courts evaluate vulnerability to false confession. "Recording ensures that an individual's rights are protected during the interrogation," Winnie Yee of the Innocence Project told the committee. Cynthia Musso of the New England Innocence Project said the measure is narrowly targeted to custodial interrogations in places of detention and includes exceptions and an admissibility process so unrecorded statements can still be admitted if there is a reasonable justification.

Several prosecutors and law enforcement witnesses urged caution. Steven Andrews, an assistant county attorney, said prosecutors "love recordings" when they exist but argued that the bill's cross‑references and definitions are confusing and that not every custodial interaction currently designated by case law would fall into the bill's recording requirement. Patrick Sullivan, representing the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, opposed mandatory legislative prescription and warned that many of the state's 244 police departments lack uniform equipment and that the bill's language is vague. Major Bill Wright of the State Police also warned that circumstances are unpredictable and that funding estimates in the bill may understate the cost of secure recording and retention.

Steve Trainham, a retired homicide detective who has trained agencies on interrogation practices, described having obtained a false confession early in his career; he said accidental confessions can be created by investigative routines and that reviewing complete recordings is the only reliable way to detect false confessions. He urged the committee to require recording.

The committee heard detailed technical and operational questions about where the bill would apply, how it would treat non-suspect witnesses, and the wiretap statute's interaction with surreptitious recording. The Department of Corrections testified as neutral, requesting clarifications and exemptions for routine booking and management operations and for statements collected by non-sworn staff.

No committee vote was recorded during the hearing; senators asked for some clarifying language and discussed the bill's exceptions, admissibility mechanics and funding. The measure drew clear divisions among prosecutors, chiefs, state police, training experts and innocence advocates and will likely see further drafting.