Committee Summary for House Criminal Justice and Public Safety (01/16/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB1651 00:02:59.519 - 9:02:20 AM	Public Hearing	establishing sexual assault orders of protection and relative to sexual assault survivors' rights.	Rhodes, Jennifer(R)[B+]2025
HB1740 01:02:05.760 - 10:01:26 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the protection of persons from domestic violence.	Sabourin dit Choinière, Matt(R)[A-]2025
HB1522 02:36:46.240 - 11:36:07 AM	Public Hearing	relative to amending and adding definitions related to the protection of persons from domestic violence.	Markell, Jay(R)[B]2025
HB1552 04:05:02.640 - 1:04:23 PM	Public Hearing	relative to orders of protection.	Love, David(R)[B+]2025
HB1633 04:24:53.120 - 1:24:14 PM	Public Hearing	expanding the information provided to survivors of sexual assault regarding their existing rights.	Read, Ellen(D)[D]2025
HB1715 06:04:05.120 - 3:03:26 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the electronic filing of domestic violence and stalking petition case documents.	Manos, Zoe(D)[CT]2025
HB1632 06:25:27.920 - 3:24:48 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the lethality assessment program screening tool.	Manos, Zoe(D)[CT]2025

HB1651: Representative Jennifer Rhodess, Chester County District 17 (Winchester, Richmond, Swanzey, Troy, Fitzwilliam) Support00:02:59.519 - 9:02:20 AM; Introduced HB1651, which expands civil protective orders to sexual assault victims who do not have a prior relationship with the perpetrator, similar to domestic violence protections. It also updates the statute of limitations for minors to ensure evidence kits are retained longer, whichever period is greater. Mentioned a technical amendment to fix wording.
HB1651: Representative Eileen Kelly, Merrimack County District 8 (Bradford, Henniker, Warner) Support00:07:02.080 - 9:06:23 AM; Emphasized the trauma of sexual assault and the lack of current civil remedies for victims assaulted by strangers or acquaintances. HB1651 creates pathways for safety through protective orders and improves tracking of sexual assault evidence kits to aid healing and prevent backlogs. Urged a yes vote.
HB1651: Lisa Curtis, Founder and Director of Safe Haven Ballet, Portsmouth Support00:10:00.480 - 9:09:21 AM; Shared personal story of sexual assault by her ballet director in 2014, including repeated assaults abroad and the ensuing trauma, legal battles, and PTSD. Highlighted the fear of lacking protection and how HB1651 would provide essential civil protective orders for survivors. Described founding Safe Haven Ballet to support other survivors through trauma-informed programs, stressing the need for safety in recovery.
HB1651: Lynn Shallet, Executive Director, New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence Support00:16:30.399 - 9:15:51 AM; Strongly supported HB1651 for establishing civil protective orders for sexual assault victims without qualifying relationships and updating evidence kit retention and tracking under the victims' bill of rights. Explained the legal gap leaving many victims unprotected, citing examples like college assaults or workplace incidents. Noted 23 states have similar laws and that NH's court system can handle these petitions. Provided context on services to 13,000+ victims annually and deferred detailed questions on kits to experts.
HB1651: Shauna Foster, Executive Director, New Beginnings Without Violence and Abuse, Laconia Support00:22:45.360 - 9:22:06 AM; Shauna Foster strongly supports HB1651, highlighting how it improves protections for sexual assault survivors. She shared statistics from 2025 where her organization provided 529 services to 108 survivors, including safety planning, financial assistance, hospital accompaniments for SANE exams, forensic interviews, court, and law enforcement support. She emphasized that unlike domestic violence or stalking victims, sexual assault victims often do not qualify for civil protective orders. She provided two case examples: one involving a survivor assaulted by a co-worker who was denied an order due to lack of intimate relationship, and another of a homeless survivor assaulted by another unhoused person who did not meet stalking criteria. Protective orders are crucial for safety, preventing retaliation, and enabling law enforcement intervention. During Q&A, she noted that bail conditions do not offer the same protections as civil orders and many victims avoid the criminal court process.
HB1651: Janet Carroll, Registered Nurse and Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner Support00:26:24.720 - 9:25:45 AM; Janet Carroll, with 27 years as a nurse and since 2005 as a SANE, supports HB1651 by detailing the New Hampshire Sexual Assault Survivors Bill of Rights (RSA 21-M:18), enacted in 2018. The bill aligns with federal changes and ensures evidence preservation. She demonstrated the sexual assault evidence tracking system, funded recently, which allows stakeholders and survivors to track kit locations via QR codes and an online portal, providing transparency and control. Last year, the committee supported legislation improving kit timelines based on this system to prevent backlogs. HB1651 codifies survivors' rights to kit status information. She showed a sample kit, noting 250-300 kits completed annually in NH, emphasizing medical care first, optional evidence collection (reported or anonymous), and inclusion of victim rights and resources. She advocated extending preservation beyond the current 20 years or statute of limitations to avoid destroying evidence prematurely, especially for child victims or cases where perpetrators flee (tolling the statute). During Q&A, she clarified kit storage (with law enforcement then forensic lab), deferred on DNA preservation, noted courts can still deny protective orders, and confirmed tracking costs no extra after setup.
HB1651: Mary Krueger, Attorney, New Hampshire Legal Assistance Support00:37:31.839 - 9:36:52 AM; Mary Krueger supports HB1651, addressing the gap in civil protective orders for sexual assault survivors under current laws (RSA 173-B for domestic violence and RSA 633:3-a for stalking), which require qualifying relationships or patterns of conduct. She distributed written testimony explaining the gap and listing available relief if passed, plus a court handout on protection order types. Sexual assault often doesn't qualify as it may be a single incident without prior relationship. Alternatives like superior court equitable injunctions are complex, fee-based, and hard to enforce (via contempt motions, not police arrest). HB1651 embeds civil protection options in the sexual assault law, mirroring 173-B processes for immediate relief, enforceability, and familiarity to courts and law enforcement, without requiring criminal reporting. It provides relief like no-contact orders, custody, support, and property use. During Q&A, she explained that protective orders are served on defendants and entered into law enforcement databases for enforcement, but issuance doesn't trigger investigation unless violated; this aligns with practices in domestic violence cases where victims seek civil relief without reporting criminally.
HB1651: Stephen Anderson, Criminal Defense Attorney Support00:47:31.520 - 9:46:52 AM; Stephen Anderson, a 25-year criminal law attorney, supports HB1651 to allow sexual assault victims to seek circuit court protective orders like those for domestic violence or stalking, avoiding the user-unfriendly superior court equitable process with its $325 fee (waivable) and weak enforcement (contempt motions vs. police arrest). The bill mirrors 173-B civil protections. He also endorsed changing sexual assault kit retention to the longer of 20 years or statute of limitations (22 years post-18th birthday for adults), as current law uses the shorter period. Bail conditions in criminal cases provide temporary no-contact but require prosecution and end with the case; civil orders offer standalone, ongoing protection. During Q&A, he deferred on DNA preservation specifics, noted victims can track kits but defense access requires court motion for expert testing, and clarified he has not represented sexual assault victims civilly.
HB1651: Robert Tangu, Manchester resident Oppose00:52:21.119 - 9:51:42 AM; Robert Tangu opposes HB1651, acknowledging sexual assault victims but arguing the bill violates Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution, which requires crimes to go through the criminal process. He claims this bill imposes bail-like conditions without criminal charges, limiting access to public defenders and protections for defendants. He emphasizes the need to fund courts and police properly to handle such cases through the criminal system, protecting against false accusations especially in custody disputes.
HB1651: Nick Georgiolis, Lieutenant, Manchester Police (with Kevin Omera, Sergeant) Support00:55:58.079 - 9:55:19 AM; Nick Georgiolis and Kevin Omera from Manchester Police's domestic and sexual violence unit support HB1651, confirming a loophole exists for sexual assault cases that don't fit domestic violence or stalking protection orders. They stress the importance of providing similar protections to sexual assault victims as to others. They also support the proposed amendment to fix wording errors, aligning it with existing protections under 173B and stalking orders, allowing for arrests on probable cause violations. They represent the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police in support. They address concerns about bail conditions versus protection orders, noting victims often seek orders without pursuing criminal charges for immediate safety, and police do not investigate crimes without victim consent.
HB1740: Representative Matt Saborn Dwanier, Rockingham 30 Support01:02:05.760 - 10:01:26 AM; Representative Matt Saborn Dwanier introduces HB1740, which repeals and replaces RSA 173B with a criminal justice framework. He shares the story of survivor Lindsay Smith, who was failed by the civil court system leading to her near-fatal shooting. The bill mandates police investigations and arrests on probable cause, links civil protective orders to criminal charges, provides automatic protections via bail conditions, and ensures due process by requiring charges first. It aims to treat domestic violence as a crime, avoiding victims litigating alone and preventing arbitrary outcomes.
HB1740: Dana Alrech, Subject Matter Expert Support01:06:02.240 - 10:05:23 AM; Dana Alrech elaborates on HB1740, presenting four case studies including Lindsay Smith (failed protection) and her friend Destiny Bard (falsely ensnared by the system), plus federal and Supreme Court cases highlighting RSA 173B's flaws. He argues the statute is broken, leading to injustices for victims and the innocent, and urges repeal to integrate it into criminal justice for better enforcement and fairness. The cases demonstrate how the civil framework allows abuse, such as baseless orders or failures to protect, and he provides public records for verification.
HB1740: Representative Heather Raymond reading for Representative Alicia Greg, Nashua Oppose01:15:15.920 - 10:14:36 AM; Representative Heather Raymond reads testimony from Representative Alicia Greg opposing HB1740. Greg, experienced in domestic violence work across states, calls the bill unprecedented and dangerous for eliminating independent civil protective orders, requiring criminal charges first. This ties protection to prosecutorial decisions, which may dismiss cases for non-safety reasons, leaving victims unprotected. It ignores needs like harassment below criminal thresholds and gives abusers incentives to derail cases, deviating from national best practices.
HB1740: Donald Gilbert, Tilton, NH, representing New Hampshire Family Justice Support01:18:58.800 - 10:18:19 AM; Donald Gilbert supports HB1740, stating it restores due process for victims and alleged perpetrators by treating domestic violence as a crime. He argues it strengthens protective orders with enforcement 'teeth' through incarceration for violators, addressing 25 years of injustices where orders failed to prevent murders. He criticizes the civil system's lower evidence standard and incentives since 1999, emphasizing police training to recognize crimes and the need for criminal treatment.
HB1740: Megan Conversano, Survivor Oppose01:22:11.679 - 10:21:32 AM; Megan Conversano opposes HB1740 for eliminating state funding for emergency crisis centers, which she relied on as a survivor for emotional support, advocacy, paperwork assistance, court accompaniment, and resources like support groups. She highlights the centers' life-saving role for people of all ages, including children, and warns that removing funding would deny essential help to future victims, contradicting efforts to reduce domestic violence.
HB1740: Major Ryan Alice, Associate General Counsel, New Hampshire National Guard Information Only01:26:13.600 - 10:25:34 AM; Major Ryan Alice provides information on HB1740's impact on the New Hampshire National Guard, noting it would require dual investigations for military protective orders, complicating protections for service members. Current law (RSA 173B) allows civilian enforcement of military orders off-base and between drill statuses, crucial for unit cohesion and readiness. Last year's HB62 integrated military orders into civilian hearings. Without RSA 173B, victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and harassment in the Guard would face reduced safety, as military police lack off-base jurisdiction.
HB1740: Robert Tangway, author of New Hampshire Oliver Twist Support01:32:23.760 - 10:31:44 AM; Robert Tangway testified as a victim of the current RSA 173-B law, which he claims is unconstitutional under Article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution. He read parts of Article 15 emphasizing rights of the accused, including the right to face witnesses and due process. He argued that RSA 173-B lacks proper application, creates bias against men in family courts, and is influenced by federal grant money leading to judicial bias. He supports HB1740 as it would align the law with constitutional standards but expressed concerns about mandatory arrest provisions creating liabilities for police. He shared his personal experience of a false domestic violence petition used in family court, resulting in loss of access to his children and ongoing lawsuits against Manchester police and the city. He urged repeal of the current law and passage of HB1740, noting it would provide due process and reduce burdens on law enforcement.
HB1740: Dr. Wendy Jensen, advocate for survivors of domestic and sexual violence Oppose01:40:49.520 - 10:40:10 AM; Dr. Wendy Jensen, with extensive experience as an advocate, wellness educator, and survivor, opposed HB1740, praising the current RSA 173-B as one of the strongest domestic violence statutes in the country. She highlighted the vital role of crisis centers providing 24/7 hotlines, safe housing, emergency transportation, and court accompaniment, which HB1740 would defund, stripping survivors of essential support. As a survivor herself, she described the fear and isolation of abuse and emphasized that the current law offers a lifeline for safety and healing. She warned that the bill would leave survivors with fewer options and greater risk, urging the committee to vote no to protect vulnerable citizens.
HB1740: Randy Collier, veteran Support01:43:50.480 - 10:43:11 AM; Randy Collier, a veteran, supported HB1740, citing personal experiences of losing rights in circuit court family division under RSA 173-B, including a 17-year protective order without evidence, resulting in no contact with his child for six years and multiple pending criminal charges. He argued that circuit courts, as administrative tribunals, do not provide constitutional due process or apply rules of evidence, leading to automatic loss of rights in state court. He referenced his ongoing Supreme Court appeal on the unconstitutionality of 173-B and criticized judges for rulings without evidence of threats or violence. Collier called for moving domestic violence cases to superior court to protect rights, prevent child kidnapping, and fix the legislation, emphasizing the treasonous nature of losing rights as a veteran.
HB1740: Betty Gay, former representative from Salem Support01:48:39.520 - 10:48:00 AM; Betty Gay, former representative, supported HB1740 for providing due process to both victims and the accused in family courts, which she claimed currently lack guarantees for evidence and testimony. She noted the bill's importance in cases involving child custody and highlighted how intimidation prevents victims from reporting abuse, especially when living near abusers. Gay advocated for victims to report crimes without bearing the full burden of prosecution, allowing trained professionals to handle investigations. She mentioned that not all crimes require victim testimony and opposed any filing fees for prosecution. Her testimony was cut short after exceeding time limits, and she was asked to email the rest, including points on crisis center payments and sexual abuse definitions.
HB1740: Lynn Shallet, New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence Oppose01:53:31.360 - 10:52:52 AM; Lynn Shallet from the coalition opposed HB1740, arguing it replaces a well-evolved, bipartisan framework with a restrictive model deviating from best practices, increasing danger for victims. She outlined four concerns: 1) Elimination of crisis center services like hotlines and shelters; 2) Restriction of civil protection orders, leaving victims without preventative remedies outside criminal processes; 3) Dangerous presumption justifying deadly force by protected persons, risking escalation and lethality; 4) Shift to a law enforcement-only response with mandatory arrests, leading to dual arrests and undermining multidisciplinary approaches involving courts, social services, and communities. She urged voting inexpedient to legislate (ITL) to maintain victim safety and access to protection.
HB1740: Mary Krueger, attorney at New Hampshire Legal Assistance Oppose01:57:35.199 - 10:56:56 AM; Mary Krueger, representing low-income clients in domestic violence cases, opposed HB1740, echoing concerns about eliminating crisis center support crucial for emotional aid, safety planning, and resources. She criticized the bill for removing ex parte relief, which provides immediate court orders for victims in imminent danger, with due process via subsequent hearings. Krueger also noted the elimination of temporary firearm relinquishment orders when serving protection orders, referencing the recent Marisol Fuentes murder where this was an issue. She emphasized the heightened danger when victims leave abusers and urged voting inexpedient to legislate to preserve these protections.
HB1740: Stephen Anderson, attorney practicing criminal law Oppose02:01:12.000 - 11:00:33 AM; Attorney Stephen Anderson opposed HB1740 for linking civil restraining orders with the criminal process, which he argued is inappropriate. He explained that civil orders are proactive to prevent abuse, while criminal processes are reactive to crimes. Merging them undermines the preventative nature of civil protections. In response to questions on due process, he noted that due process varies by context—higher in criminal cases facing incarceration than in civil matters like restraining orders—but affirmed its existence in civil processes via hearings and judicial decisions. He encouraged voting inexpedient to legislate and was open to questions on family law implications.
HB1740: Kevin Omar, Sergeant, Manchester Police Department (accompanied by Lieutenant Nicholas Joe) Oppose02:05:01.360 - 11:04:22 AM; Kevin Omar, a sergeant with 21 years in law enforcement including extensive experience in domestic violence units, testified in opposition to HB1740. He highlighted that the bill's extensive changes to RSA 173B would require significant statewide training and resources. He noted that victims often recant statements to protect abusers, but this does not negate the original abuse. The bill's requirement for a pending criminal investigation for protection orders would hinder victims who are not mentally prepared to engage the criminal system. He emphasized that not all abuse, such as emotional manipulation or financial abuse, is chargeable criminally, and civil orders provide necessary protection with a lower burden of proof. He stated no other jurisdiction requires a criminal investigation for civil orders and urged finding the bill inexpedient to legislate to avoid setting back progress in domestic violence laws.
HB1740: Jay Markel, Prime Sponsor, Attorney at Family Legal PC, Concord Support02:09:04.480 - 11:08:25 AM; Jay Markel, a practicing attorney with over 20 years in family and criminal law, introduced HB1522 as the prime sponsor. He provided background on domestic violence statistics from 2024, noting 3,476 petitions filed, with 82% granted temporarily. The bill expands domestic violence definitions to include coercive control and adds revenge porn as a predicate offense. He explained coercive control as a pattern of conduct involving isolation, deprivation of needs, monitoring activities, and compelling specific behaviors, often co-occurring with physical violence. He cited research showing 60-80% of survivors experience it and noted its adoption in states like Massachusetts, Washington, Maine, Kentucky, and New York. The bill maintains the burden of proving a credible physical threat. He shared a case where coercive control justified a protection order and distinguished it from mere bad behavior by linking it to escalating danger. He provided exhibits including statistics, statutory references, and literature on coercive control.
HB1740: Representative E. Simone Support02:22:24.160 - 11:21:45 AM; Representative E. Simone shared a personal story of a woman enduring 17 years of coercive abuse from her husband, including verbal degradation, threats of suicide, alienation from children, tracking devices, financial control, and confinement. Despite no physical bruises, the abuse escalated to life-threatening fear, leading to her escape and a protection order in another state. In New Hampshire, the parent faced threats but could not obtain protection due to lack of physical contact. She emphasized that coercive, verbal, mental, financial, and emotional abuse must be recognized in statutes to prevent murders. She quoted a judge on the damaging impact of words and noted the absence of drugs or alcohol, attributing it to the abuser's dangerous character. During questioning, she clarified that minor controlling acts like adjusting heat do not qualify, but severe financial manipulation does, advocating for careful modeling after other states to address mental illness like narcissism without criminalizing minor spousal issues.
HB1740: Representative Lori Corsen, representing Marisol Fuentes' family, Berlin Support02:33:10.160 - 11:32:31 AM; Representative Lori Corsen spoke on behalf of murder victim Marisol Fuentes from Berlin, killed by her husband after years of coercive control including isolation from friends and family, monitoring via GPS, controlling finances and movements, and threats to loved ones. She criticized the system for failing to recognize the pattern of abuse due to lack of physical incidents and legal framework. HB1522 amends RSA 173B:1 to include coercive control as abuse, defining it as patterns of isolation, deprivation of needs, control via technology, and threats including to children or pets. Marisol followed all recommended steps but was unprotected. Corsen urged passage to honor Marisol and protect others, noting its presence in 10 states.
HB1522: Robert Tangu Oppose02:36:46.240 - 11:36:07 AM; Robert Tangu opposes HB1522, arguing that coercive control is not a crime in New Hampshire and should not be included in civil contexts like protection orders under RSA 173B, which he claims is unconstitutional. He emphasizes that domestic violence requires physical abuse, citing the New Hampshire Supreme Court case Knight v. Mayor (2011), and warns against bias in labeling people as victims without conviction. He criticizes the low evidentiary standards like preponderance of evidence, potential conflicts of interest from grant-funded lobbyists, and instances where police and judges mishandle cases. Tangu urges repealing 173B entirely to protect due process and avoid punitive measures in civil proceedings.
HB1522: Don Mayber, estate executor for Esperanza (Marisol's mother) Support02:42:09.280 - 11:41:30 AM; Don Mayber supports HB1522 to include coercive control in the definition of abuse, sharing the tragic story of Marisol Fuentes Hatcha, murdered by her husband Michael in Berlin, NH, on July 6, 2025. He details examples of Michael's coercive control, including restricting Marisol's phone and social media access (April 11, 2025), raping and beating her while stealing her belongings and identity (April 25, 2025), and manipulating her online accounts in front of police (June 9, 2025). Mayber plays and quotes a recording of Marisol's frustrated plea to police who dismissed her concerns about recovering her accounts, highlighting systemic failures. He argues that recognizing escalating coercive behaviors is essential to prevent future tragedies and urges support for the bill to amplify unheard victims.
HB1522: Pamela Kylig, New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence Support02:51:12.000 - 11:50:33 AM; Pamela Kylig supports HB1522, particularly adding non-consensual dissemination of private sexual images (RSA 644:9A) to RSA 173B, as it aligns with victim experiences and existing domestic violence frameworks. She notes the harassing and coercive impact of such acts, including synthetic images, and praises prior state legislation on deepfakes. On coercive control, she advocates caution due to its complexity, recommending further discussion, judicial training, risk assessments, and alignment with best practices from states like Maine to avoid barriers for self-represented litigants (85% of filers) or mutual orders. She offers to collaborate with sponsors and the committee, emphasizing context-specific nature of domestic violence and the need for measures to prevent misuse.
HB1522: Mary Krueger, New Hampshire Legal Assistance Support02:59:28.240 - 11:58:49 AM; Mary Krueger supports adding non-consensual dissemination of private sexual images to the abuse definition in RSA 173B but expresses concerns about incorporating coercive control as written, deferring to the Coalition's expertise to avoid weaponization by abusers. With 20 years handling protection orders, she notes discussions in the Governor's Commission on how to integrate coercive control without constitutional issues, as current acts are criminal for due process. She suggests defining it under 'credible present threat to safety' to assess lethality risks rather than as an enumerated act, which could invite challenges since it's non-criminal. Krueger offers to join a subcommittee for refinement, highlighting coercive control's role in demonstrating ongoing danger.
HB1522: Stephen Anders, Attorney Support03:04:08.000 - 12:03:29 PM; Stephen Anders, a criminal law attorney, supports adding coercive control to the statute for protective orders. He agrees with previous testimony from Representative Markeel and defers to experts on the topic. He emphasizes that this addition does not criminalize coercive control but enables proactive protection through protective orders to prevent crime. During questioning, he explains that coercive control, such as depriving basic needs like heat, could qualify if it presents a credible threat to safety, leaving it to judges to decide on a case-by-case basis. He argues that judges can assess coercive control without physical evidence, similar to other non-physical abuses like criminal threatening, by evaluating witness credibility.
HB1552: Representative Daniel Popovich Mueller Information Only04:05:02.640 - 1:04:23 PM; Representative Daniel Popovich Mueller introduces HB1552 briefly without additional details or taking questions.
HB1552: Representative Betty Gay, Salem Support04:05:53.920 - 1:05:14 PM; Representative Betty Gay from Salem supports HB1552, which holds accountable those who file false complaints by prosecuting them. She notes that false accusations cause significant pain to the accused and that dropping the complaint should not prevent consequences for the filer. She acknowledges potential need for amendments on legal details but urges retaining the accountability provision.
HB1552: Dana Alrech Information Only04:07:50.239 - 1:07:11 PM; Dana Alrech cannot endorse HB1552 as written and suggests repealing and reenacting RSA 173-B with RSA 1740 instead. However, he highlights the bill's good idea and refers to two relevant New Hampshire Supreme Court cases: State v. Christian Ruggerio (163 NH 129, 2011) and State v. Brendan Bisby (69 A3d 95, 2013), which directly address the bill's language.
HB1552: Unnamed Speaker (likely attorney) Support04:09:40.800 - 1:09:01 PM; The speaker discusses how HB1552 codifies Supreme Court decisions on perjury in domestic violence cases, referencing State v. Christian Berio and State v. Brendan Bisby as examples of fabricated allegations. They emphasize the need to address perjury in DV cases and connect it to broader issues like military tribunals, noting a case involving a Coast Guard member that revealed innocence after investigation.
HB1552: Elizabeth Sergeant, representing New Hampshire Association Chiefs of Police Oppose04:12:55.040 - 1:12:16 PM; Elizabeth Sergeant submits written testimony from the lieutenant in opposition to HB1552, stating that the bill would create a chilling effect for legitimate victims. She does not answer questions but passes the testimony.
HB1552: Pamela Kyl, public policy specialist at the coalition Oppose04:13:44.000 - 1:13:05 PM; Pamela Kyl opposes HB1552 because the petition already includes language about criminal penalties and perjury statutes exist, making the addition redundant. She argues it targets domestic violence, stalking, and sexual violence victims by suggesting they are not credible, and questions why it isn't added to other crime statutes like burglary or arson. She notes similar issues arose last year with a stalking statute.
HB1552: Attorney Stephen Hendris Oppose04:16:14.159 - 1:15:35 PM; Attorney Stephen Hendris, a former prosecutor, opposes HB1552, noting that standard language on petitions already warns of criminal penalties for false statements, similar to criminal complaints. He explains that referencing perjury specifically (a felony for material false statements) could weaken prosecution options compared to current statutes allowing misdemeanor charges for non-material false statements. He shares that in 25 years, he hasn't prosecuted false DV applications but has handled violations, and discusses challenges in investigating false reports, emphasizing existing laws like false reports to law enforcement.
HB1552: Representative Corsen, sponsor of HB1595 Information Only04:21:31.359 - 1:20:52 PM; Representative Corsen introduces HB1595, acknowledges it needs more work, and requests an interim study to collaborate with the coalition.
HB1552: Representative Ellen Reid, sponsor of HB1633 Information Only04:24:08.000 - 1:23:29 PM; Representative Ellen Reid introduces HB1633, apologizes for a video lag delay, and notes that some signed-up testifiers have time constraints. She begins her introduction but the transcript cuts off.
HB1633: Representative Ellen Reid (Sponsor, Rockingham 10 - Newmarket and Newfields) Support04:24:53.120 - 1:24:14 PM; Representative Reid shares her personal story of being drugged and sexually assaulted in 2022, describing how she was denied a rape kit and informed of her rights due to hospital policies and ignorance of the law. She explains the bill's history, noting it passed the House unanimously last term but was gutted in the Senate. The bill requires hospitals and law enforcement to provide victims with a palm card outlining their rights under the Survivors Bill of Rights, such as access to forensic exams and evidence collection. She addresses opposition concerns about costs, SANE nurses, and kit processing, arguing that informing victims is low-cost and essential, proposing solutions like sub-kits, donations, or lifting caps on DOJ funds from consumer protection. She emphasizes that rights mean nothing if unknown, comparing it to Miranda rights, and calls for transparency without gatekeeping victims based on assault severity.
HB1633: Representative Heath Howard (Stratford District 4 - Strafford and Barrington) Support04:57:18.240 - 1:56:39 PM; Representative Howard supports HB1633, highlighting that survivors often lack understanding of their protections during trauma. The bill closes this gap by requiring written notice from healthcare providers, law enforcement, and others about rights to medical exams, evidence kits, preservation, and notifications. It ensures accessibility regardless of legal terminology knowledge, promoting transparency, consistency, and respect for survivors.
HB1633: Representative Jonah Wheeler Support04:59:33.600 - 1:58:54 PM; Representative Wheeler affirms support for HB1633, praising prior testimony and emphasizing the need for clear, concise notification of survivors' rights, similar to the patient bill of rights. He argues this prevents agencies or hospitals from skirting rights, providing essential support in traumatic situations to help survivors move forward.
HB1633: Representative Betty Gay Support05:02:42.638 - 2:02:03 PM; Representative Gay supports HB1633 as straightforward, arguing victims must know their rights to avoid denial due to ignorance. She deems excuses about costs inexcusable, suggests ways to test for drugs like Benadryl without full kits, and notes that even if penetration is suspected, full exams may be needed. She urges amendments to strengthen the bill.
HB1633: Stacy Brown (City Councilor, Concord, NH) Support05:04:33.760 - 2:03:54 PM; Stacy Brown, a sexual assault survivor and Concord city councilor, strongly supports HB1633 for ensuring written notice of rights to procedures, police reports, and HIV testing from providers, law enforcement, and prosecutors. It broadens eligibility and requires DOJ online posting. As a teen survivor, she shares how such notice would have helped amid disorientation. She criticizes opposition as antithetical to empowering survivors, noting the bill's low cost and high impact in preventing retraumatization, encouraging reporting, and ensuring accountability.
HB1633: Donald Gilbert (New Hampshire Family Justice) Support05:07:00.000 - 2:06:21 PM; Donald Gilbert from New Hampshire Family Justice supports HB1633, citing profound neglect in providing rape kits to child victims, including a 15-year-old who was denied one and became pregnant. He notes systemic issues in family cases with DCYF and domestic violence, including financial incentives for denying kits and profiting from assaults. He argues the bill addresses justice denial, linking it to broader problems like police refusing investigations, and calls for addressing financial aspects in future legislation.
HB1633: Pamela Kylig and Janet Carol (Coalition - New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence) Information Only05:11:19.520 - 2:10:40 PM; Pamela Kylig and Janet Carol from the Coalition are neutral but provide information. They support survivors knowing rights and note kits include bills of rights. Janet, a nurse with 27 years and over 1500 evaluations, explains hospital processes: medical history for care, options for exams (medical only, reported, or anonymous kits), differences between medical and forensic exams, and that kits aren't always appropriate (e.g., no touch DNA yet). She covers drug-facilitated assaults, toxicology limitations (4-120 hour windows, false negatives), and advocate availability (within 30 minutes). They offer to work on amendments to avoid unintended consequences, emphasizing trauma-informed care and protocol adherence.
HB1633: Megan Hagerman (Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Bureau Chief) Information Only05:33:21.840 - 2:32:42 PM; Megan Hagerman from DOJ supports improving notifications and shares background on current law requiring DOJ to provide booklets and pamphlets on victims' rights to medical providers and online. She stresses following evidence-based protocols for kit collection to ensure admissibility in court, noting kits aren't always needed or available (e.g., old cases). She flags fiscal costs: kits can't be reused if partially opened, increasing tracking and potential software needs; estimates 1,000 more kits costing $1.1 million. Notification is medically driven, but the bill could lead to more kits regardless. She offers engagement on language to avoid setting victims up for failure.
HB1633: Unidentified Representative (likely Representative Bob Support05:44:13.760 - 2:43:34 PM; The representative supports HB1633, arguing victims deserve evidence collection without gatekeeping by providers acting as judges. He notes irony of rights info being in kits victims can't access, calls for trusting victims enough to provide evidence, and suggests modular kits to address costs. As a finance committee member, he dismisses financial concerns, stating policy merits outweigh costs and operational issues can be resolved.
HB1715: Representative Zoe Manos, Rockingham County District 12 Support06:04:05.120 - 3:03:26 PM; Representative Manos introduced HB1715, stemming from the murder of Marisol Fuentes. The bill requires electronic filing of domestic violence and stalking petitions starting October 1, 2026, to ensure all court divisions have access to complete case information via the Odyssey system, preventing missed warning signs. It includes exceptions for hardships like lack of computer access or safety concerns, with checkboxes for exemptions. She highlighted benefits of e-filing for safety, convenience, and efficiency, drawing from successful implementations in other courts. E-filing saves time for victims, advocates, and court personnel, and maintains confidentiality. She addressed fiscal concerns and noted the bill's prior filings.
HB1715: Committee Chair (questioning) Information Only06:11:26.958 - 3:10:47 PM; The chair inquired about prior funding for court system updates, interactions with the judicial branch, fiscal note details ($1.6-3.2 million initial, $300-700k ongoing), and concerns over mandating e-filing versus offering it as an option, especially for safety. He expressed support for the electronic option but caution on mandates.
HB1715: Representative Manos (response) Support06:12:40.798 - 3:12:01 PM; Responded to questions on judicial branch HR issues delaying progress, their support for the bill, unknown status of allocated funds, and fiscal note. Emphasized the bill provides exceptions, not a strict mandate, with easy checkbox options for hardships. Supported making e-filing the norm but optional for safety.
HB1715: Representative Rhodes (questioning) Information Only06:17:12.558 - 3:16:33 PM; Asked about allowing paper filings with court uploading to the system to avoid victims seeking exceptions, reducing barriers.
HB1715: Representative Manos (response) Support06:18:18.000 - 3:17:39 PM; Agreed that victims should have filing choices, including paper with court upload, to ensure information sharing.
HB1715: Betty Gay, Salem Support06:18:18.000 - 3:17:39 PM; Supported the bill for providing a complete case history to judges, addressing issues with inconsistent judges in family court. Noted the exception clause but suggested clarifying to avoid needing court approval for paper filing. Highlighted e-filing's safety advantages over in-person visits, though acknowledged choices based on abuser monitoring.
HB1715: Pamela Kylig, New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence Support06:21:31.120 - 3:20:52 PM; Supported the bill with amendments to change 'shall' to 'may' for e-filing, removing hardship barriers. Emphasized flexibility post-COVID for remote filing, need for updated case management for data and logistics. Addressed safety concerns like tracking or access issues, advocating options without mandates. Noted current in-person filing and police options for emergencies.
HB1632: Unidentified Representative (sponsor) Support06:25:27.920 - 3:24:48 PM; Introduced HB1632, also from Marisol Fuentes' murder, mandating the LAP (Lethality Assessment Program) tool by all law enforcement in domestic violence responses, protective order violations, and stalking cases. LAP, developed by Dr. Jackie Campbell, assesses risk and connects victims to services; used voluntarily by 45-50% of NH departments since 2009, funded by AG. Requires filing screened results at arraignment. Noted LAP form instructions for sharing with department contact, which failed in Fuentes' case, potentially missing bail modifications. Open to alternatives like Mosaic if LAP's copyright limits mandates.
HB1632: Committee Member (questioning) Information Only06:31:15.040 - 3:30:36 PM; Inquired about flexibility in statute for tools like LAP or Mosaic to avoid obsolescence, given law enforcement standards role.
HB1632: Unidentified Representative (response) Support06:32:19.840 - 3:31:40 PM; Agreed to flexibility for other tools; noted LAP developers' reluctance to mandate due to potential superficial use. Emphasized need beyond voluntary 45-50% participation, depending on location.
HB1632: Committee Member (questioning) Information Only06:33:38.638 - 3:32:59 PM; Asked if LAP is for bail hearings or victim-police interaction; purpose for prosecutor (evidence or awareness).
HB1632: Unidentified Representative (response) Support06:34:44.558 - 3:34:05 PM; Clarified LAP is for police-victim interaction to connect to crisis centers for safety planning, not bail. Results should go to police file and prosecutor for awareness of high-risk scores, prompting bail review or evidence consideration.
HB1632: Pamela Kylig, New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence Information Only06:37:29.520 - 3:36:50 PM; No formal position; highlighted LAP's purpose for de-escalation, victim support, not court evidence or bail. Supported risk tools like ODARA (used in Maine) for courts. Advocated coordination among stakeholders, flexibility in LAP protocol to avoid unintended exclusions or mandates. Noted law enforcement support for tools, recommended AG website for details. Cautioned against LAP as legal evidence due to constitutional issues; focus on judicial training.
HB1632: Stephen Andress, Attorney Information Only06:44:29.200 - 3:43:50 PM; Attorney Stephen Andress, a former prosecutor, testified about the Lethality Assessment Protocol (LAP), describing it as a safety planning tool to help victims recognize dangerous situations. He explained that LAP includes questions about firearms access, choking, and controlling behaviors. Currently, LAP is not provided to the court but occasionally to prosecutors for use in bail arguments to assess danger levels. When shared with prosecution, it is disclosed to the defense via discovery. He noted that the Attorney General's office advises against recording LAP on body-worn cameras to protect victim privacy, as it would be provided to the defendant. Andress suggested that the bill's requirement to provide LAP to the court at arraignment may not effectively influence bail decisions without prosecutorial advocacy. He recommended focusing on training law enforcement rather than mandating court submission, allowing prosecutors to use LAP information in arguments without formal provision.

Roy, Terry(Chairman)(R)[B]2025	Murray, Alissandra(Clerk)(D)[D-]2025	Rhodes, Jennifer(V Chairman)(R)[B+]2025
Harriott-Gathright, Linda(D)[CT]2025	Proulx, Mark(R)[C+]2025	Lascelles, Richard(R)[B+]2025
Morency, Pete(R)[B]2025	Paquette, Kathleen(R)[B+]2025	Murphy, Nancy(D)[CT]2025
Newman, Ray(D)[F]2025	Meuse, David(D)[F]2025	Devoid, Ricky(R)[A-]2025
Scherr, Buzz(D)[D-]2025	Sabourin dit Choinière, Matt(R)[A-]2025