A 107 mph traffic stop involving a New Hampshire Democratic lawmaker has brought the debate over police body cameras and dashboard cameras to the forefront, particularly after the involved sheriff's office confirmed it does not possess either technology due to funding shortfalls.
State Rep. Ellen Read is challenging charges stemming from two traffic stops in Rockingham County. One stop, where a deputy alleged she was driving 107 mph, has become central to her legal argument that a provision of the New Hampshire Constitution protects lawmakers from being detained while traveling to or from legislative duties. The absence of body or dashboard camera footage means there is no official recording of the stop that initiated this constitutional challenge.
Rockingham County Sheriff's Office Major Christopher Bashaw stated that the agency lacks the necessary funding to purchase body-worn or dashboard cameras, though he expressed a desire for the agency to be equipped with such technology. He confirmed that deputies do not use either type of camera.
New Hampshire established a Body-Worn and Dashboard Camera Fund in 2021 to offer matching grants to local law enforcement agencies for the acquisition, maintenance, replacement, and data storage of cameras. All local law enforcement agencies are eligible to apply for these grants. State law mandates that agencies deploying body cameras must establish policies for when officers must record encounters, including traffic stops, but it does not compel agencies to purchase or use the equipment.
It remains unclear if the Rockingham County Sheriff's Office has applied for funding from the state grant program. Read indicated her support for body camera legislation and funding, expressing willingness to assist the sheriff's office in securing funds in the upcoming state budget. She noted her support for body camera funding despite questioning other law enforcement expenditures, such as military-grade equipment and expensive vehicles.
Read disputed the sheriff's office's assertion that she recorded part of the traffic stop on her cellphone, stating, "They are incorrect, I wish I had." She added, "The officers conveniently not wearing/using body cams are the reason that I'm investing in a dash cam." Read clarified that she did not record the encounter and that a witness on a phone call later testified in court about the incident.
Read has maintained that the constitutional provision is intended to prevent interference with legislative duties, not to grant immunity from prosecution. She admitted to traveling at approximately 85 mph but disputed the deputy's claim of 107 mph and reckless driving.
Lawrence Friedman, a professor at New England Law, commented that the centuries-old constitutional provision was likely intended to ensure lawmakers could perform their duties without undue delay, not to provide absolute immunity from traffic stops or criminal prosecution. Friedman suggested it is unlikely a court would grant a legislator immunity for a moving violation that would subject others to arrest.
Friedman also noted that the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision not to immediately hear Read's constitutional challenge should not be interpreted as a ruling on its merits, but rather as a procedural step to allow the case to proceed through the trial court. Bashaw echoed the sentiment that the constitutional provision was meant to prevent interference with legislative business, not to shield lawmakers from accountability for dangerous driving. Read acknowledged that the constitutional language, written before the advent of automobiles, could benefit from modernization while preserving its original intent.