Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Victim Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears National Guard advocates on bill to extend state confidentiality protections to Guard victim advocates
Summary
HB1172 would give New Hampshire National Guard sexual‑assault response personnel the same state-law confidentiality protections as civilian victim advocates. Guard witnesses described restricted and unrestricted reporting options and urged the committee to close a gap that could otherwise chill victims from seeking help.
The committee considered HB1172, which would extend state statutory confidentiality protections to National Guard sexual‑assault prevention and response personnel. Representative Mike Moffett introduced the measure and witnesses from the Guard described the program and practical effects.
Major Ryan (National Guard) and Emily Crawl, the Guard’s sexual‑assault prevention and response officer, told the committee the bill fills a gap: active‑duty service members enjoy military confidentiality protections, and civilian advocates have state protections, but Guard victim‑advocates lack clear state-law privilege when operating in the intersection of state and federal systems. Crawl explained three response options for victims — no report, restricted report (confidential, non‑identifying notification to senior leadership), and unrestricted report (written report that triggers command notification and possible law‑enforcement investigation) — and said most support services do not require filing an unrestricted report.
Committee members pressed witnesses on how restricted notification differs from unrestricted reporting and whether repeated confidential disclosures can trigger administrative or criminal action without violating survivor confidentiality. Witnesses said restricted reports generate non‑identifying notifications to senior leadership only and that unrestricted reports require written consent; advocates told the committee that confidentiality would be preserved unless the victim chooses to waive it or there is an immediate safety/mandatory‑reporting reason (for example child abuse or imminent harm).
Witnesses and several senators expressed bipartisan support for the intent of HB1172 while seeking clarifying language about the interplay between military policies, mandatory‑reporting requirements, and state courts’ subpoena powers. No committee final vote was recorded during the hearing; sponsors and witnesses said the bill would address a known gap and invited drafting clarifications.
