NH Lawmaker’s 107 MPH Stop Reignites Bodycam Debate

A recent traffic stop involving a New Hampshire state representative traveling at an alleged 107 mph has brought the contentious issue of police body and dashboard cameras back into public discussion. The controversy centers on the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office, which, according to confirmations, does not equip its deputies with either type of recording device due to funding limitations.

Constitutional Immunity Under Scrutiny

The incident involves State Representative Ellen Read, who is contesting charges stemming from two separate traffic stops. The most significant of these, where a deputy claims she was driving 107 mph, has become a focal point in her legal defense. Read’s argument hinges on a provision within the New Hampshire Constitution that she contends protects lawmakers from being stopped or delayed while traveling to and from their official legislative duties. The absence of any official recording from the stop, due to the lack of body or dashboard cameras, leaves her claim of constitutional protection without corroborating evidence.

Major Christopher Bashaw of the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office stated that the agency’s inability to use body-worn or dashboard cameras is a direct result of insufficient funding. He expressed that the department would welcome equipping deputies with such technology if the financial resources were available. Bashaw clarified that the constitutional provision in question was designed to prevent interference with legislative proceedings, not to grant immunity for dangerous driving behaviors.

“The claim that you’re immune from all types of arrests… that’d be like saying you could drive at those speeds, commit a vehicular homicide, and that you are not allowed to be held accountable because you’re traveling to and from session,” Bashaw explained, emphasizing the potential implications for public safety if such immunity were broadly applied.

Legislative Support for Camera Funding

New Hampshire has made efforts to address the funding gap for law enforcement cameras. In 2021, lawmakers established a Body-Worn and Dashboard Camera Fund. This initiative provides matching grants to eligible local law enforcement agencies to help cover the costs of purchasing cameras, as well as ongoing expenses for maintenance, replacement, and data storage. While all local agencies can apply, it remains unclear whether the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office has sought funds from this program.

Representative Read has indicated her consistent support for legislation related to body cameras and has advocated for allocating funds to assist law enforcement agencies in acquiring them. She has also expressed a willingness to collaborate with the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office to advocate for such funding in the upcoming state budget. This support for camera funding exists even as Read voices reservations about other law enforcement expenditures, such as military-grade equipment and high-cost vehicles.

Disputed Details of the Traffic Stop

Adding another layer to the controversy, Read disputed the sheriff’s office’s assertion that she recorded part of the traffic stop on her cellphone. “They are incorrect, I wish I had,” Read stated. She further commented, “The officers conveniently not wearing/using body cams are the reason that I’m investing in a dash cam.” According to Read, the sheriff’s office misrepresented the events that transpired during the stop, asserting that she did not record the encounter. She mentioned that a witness, who overheard the conversation during a cellphone call, later testified in court.

Read clarified her position on the constitutional provision, arguing that it is intended to prevent undue delays for lawmakers engaged in legislative duties, rather than offering a shield against prosecution for traffic violations. She admitted to driving approximately 85 mph on the highway and stated her willingness to accept a ticket for that speed. However, she strongly contested the deputy’s claim of her traveling at 107 mph and driving recklessly.

Legal Perspectives on Legislative Immunity

Lawrence Friedman, a professor at New England Law, provided context on the historical intent of the constitutional provision. He noted that it dates back centuries and was primarily designed to ensure lawmakers could perform their duties without arbitrary interruption, not to grant sweeping immunity from all legal accountability, including traffic offenses.

“I think it’s probably not the case that this provision provides some kind of absolute immunity,” Friedman commented. “It’s unlikely that a court would say, ‘No, you’re absolutely immune from arrest for a moving violation that everyone else would be subject to arrest for just because you happen to be a legislator.'”

Friedman also advised against interpreting the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision not to immediately hear Read’s constitutional challenge as a definitive ruling on the case’s merits. “My understanding is that it’s not that her appeal is denied,” he said. “The Supreme Court said no because they want to see how it plays out at the trial court.” This suggests the legal battle over legislative immunity and traffic stops is far from over.

Modernizing an Ancient Provision

Representative Read acknowledged that the constitutional language, established long before the advent of automobiles, might benefit from modernization while still preserving its original spirit. This sentiment reflects a broader challenge in applying centuries-old legal principles to contemporary issues, particularly when technological advancements and modern societal norms come into play.

The ongoing debate highlights the tension between ensuring the functional independence of lawmakers and upholding the principle of equal accountability under the law. The lack of camera footage in this specific case underscores the challenges in resolving such disputes and fuels the call for greater transparency in law enforcement interactions.