A New Hampshire state representative is asserting a provision of the state's constitution shields her from being stopped by police for speeding, arguing the stops themselves were unconstitutional. State Rep. Ellen Read faces two separate speeding cases, one in December 2024, where she is accused of driving over 100 mph on Interstate 93 in Windham, and another in June 2025, for allegedly driving 92 mph in a 65 mph zone in Londonderry.
Read's defense centers on a 1784 provision of the New Hampshire Constitution that states, "No member of the House of Representatives, or Senate shall be arrested, or held to bail, on mesne process, during his going to, returning from, or attendance upon, the Court." She contends that while this provision does not exempt legislators from prosecution, it prohibits law enforcement from stopping them while they are commuting to or from legislative duties.
According to court documents, Read stated she was driving a vehicle with a New Hampshire State Representative license plate and informed the officers she was returning from a legislative session in both instances. Her petition argues that the stops were unlawful seizures, and any evidence obtained should be suppressed, leading to the dismissal of the charges.
Read has maintained that this constitutional protection was intended to prevent local officials from delaying lawmakers and interfering with legislative proceedings, not to grant immunity from criminal behavior. She has compared the situation to how police officers or emergency medical technicians might be treated when violating traffic laws while on official duty, suggesting a "functional analysis" should apply.
A judge rejected this argument in Read's first speeding case, finding her guilty of negligent driving in August 2025 and imposing a $1,240 fine, with half deferred. She was also required to maintain good behavior for two years, complete a safe-driving course, and avoid further moving violations to keep her license.
Read subsequently asked the New Hampshire Supreme Court to review the constitutional question, but the court declined without prejudice, allowing her to raise the arguments in a future appeal. In a statement on Instagram, Read said she accepted the reduced negligent driving charge to conclude the case and did not appeal the constitutional issue at that time.
Her office has also disputed the speed allegations, claiming the 2009 Toyota Yaris she was driving cannot reach such speeds. Furthermore, her office stated that the officer did not use radar and estimated her speed while accelerating to catch up. Read's office also noted that a State House employee on the phone with her during the stop provided testimony that conflicted with the officer's account and criticized the lack of body-camera footage from the incident. Read now advocates for motorists to use dashboard cameras.
Read's legal challenge, as presented, focuses on the legality of the traffic stops rather than the speeding charges themselves, asserting the "unconstitutional manner of the stops" as the core of her argument.