Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Body Worn Camera Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to make police body‑cam footage subject to New Hampshire Right‑to‑Know law draws sharp pushback
Summary
Supporters argued HB 1587 would improve transparency and trust by applying RSA 91‑A to body‑cam footage with redaction safeguards. Police chiefs, prosecutors and county attorneys warned the change would create heavy redaction burdens, privacy conflicts with RSA 105‑D and legal risk for victims.
Representative Matt Sabour introduced House Bill 15‑87, which would make police body‑worn camera footage subject to New Hampshire’s Right‑to‑Know statutes (RSA 91‑A), with a five‑business‑day response requirement and specified redaction categories to protect privacy.
Carla Gerrick, president of Right to Know New Hampshire, told the committee the bill would increase transparency and reduce lawsuits over access. Gerrick recounted a prior case and argued that public access to taxpayer‑funded recordings strengthens accountability while statutory redaction rules would protect minors and victims.
Opponents — including municipal and state police chiefs, captains, and the Merrimack County attorney — cautioned that the bill as drafted would create untenable operational burdens. Captain Brian Treffy and others described the redaction workflow for body‑cam footage (often requiring one to four hours of staff time per ten minutes of video) and warned that the time and personnel needed would be far greater than the fiscal analysis suggests. Several chiefs said small agencies lack the capacity to perform frame‑by‑frame redactions and that municipal departments might discontinue body‑worn cameras rather than shoulder the costs and litigation risk.
Legal witnesses noted statutory conflicts with RSA 105‑D (the body‑worn camera statute), which restricts distribution and requires retention schedules for evidence and privacy protections. Merrimack County Attorney Paul Halverson warned that turning body‑worn footage into generally releasable public records could undermine evidentiary protections and victims’ confidentiality and could create inconsistent outcomes if an individual waives privacy rights.
Committee members asked whether a narrower approach — for example, guaranteeing access to persons depicted in footage or to complainants — could address concerns. Several witnesses suggested carve‑outs (allowing subjects or complainants to inspect footage) and clarifications about fees and redaction cost recovery as possible mitigations.
The committee did not vote on HB 15‑87; the hearing highlighted the divide between open‑government advocates and law‑enforcement and prosecutorial officials about operational feasibility, privacy, and legal harmonization.
