Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Lawmakers weigh keeping license‑plate reader law in place as police tout investigatory gains
Loading...
Summary
The House Transportation Committee heard testimony on HB1059 to stop the scheduled 2027 sunset of RSA 261:75‑b, which regulates license‑plate readers (LPRs). Law‑enforcement witnesses cited drug seizures and arrests; civil‑liberty concerns focused on whether non‑hit data should be retained longer than the statute’s current three‑minute limit.
A House Transportation Committee hearing opened on HB1059, a bill that would prevent the scheduled January 1, 2027, expiration of RSA 261:75‑b, the statute that governs use of license‑plate reader (LPR) systems in New Hampshire.
Prime sponsor Representative Buzz Sher said the measure would "unrepeal" the current law and that he intends to work with stakeholders to amend retention and access provisions. "The bill is…not reflective of UNH or the Portsmouth Police Commission — it is solely in my capacity as a representative," Sher said in opening remarks.
Representatives of law enforcement told the committee that the technology has produced tangible investigatory results. A Department of Safety/State Police witness described several narcotics cases, saying the unit’s limited use of LPRs in recent months “has resulted in the seizures of more than $200,000 US currency…2.5 kilograms of methamphetamine, more than 500 grams of cocaine,” and several arrests. Mark Baldwin, a retired detective sergeant testifying for the New Hampshire Police Association, said LPR hits helped catch a homicide suspect who fled across state lines.
Several committee members pressed witnesses on operational details. Testimony distinguished "hits," which are plates placed on a law‑enforcement watchlist and retained beyond three minutes, from "non‑hits," which the current statute requires be purged within three minutes to reduce privacy risk. Former legislator and co‑author of the original law Neil Kirk warned that expanding the three‑minute retention period could expose non‑hit records to the state’s right‑to‑know process unless the legislature explicitly exempted them.
Committee members also asked about cross‑jurisdictional sharing and whether LPRs are used for Amber or Silver Alerts; witnesses said the system can support hot‑file lookups and such alerts. Several members sought clarity on where fixed cameras are located and how mobile versus fixed deployments differ; witnesses said local practices vary and that some installations are in vehicles while others are stationary.
Sponsor Sher said he plans to circulate an amendment reflecting stakeholder input that would preserve investigatory benefits while addressing privacy concerns. The committee later met in executive session and recorded a recommendation on this and other bills.
What happens next: The committee received public and agency testimony and will consider sponsor amendments informed by law‑enforcement operational details and privacy concerns. Any amendment and the committee’s formal recommendation will appear in the committee report.
