Committee Summary for House Criminal Justice and Public Safety (02/05/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB62 00:02:25.239 - 8:59:17 AM	Public Hearing	relative to protection of persons from domestic violence and military protective orders.	Roy, Terry(R)[B]2025
HB87 00:53:40.640 - 9:50:32 AM	Public Hearing	prohibiting the posting of land not owned by the poster.	Love, David(R)[B+]2025
HB102 01:18:21.360 - 10:15:13 AM	Public Hearing	relative to oversight of federal law enforcement actions.	Belcher, Mike(R)[B+]2025
HB103 02:01:50.840 - 10:58:42 AM	Public Hearing	relative to fugitives from justice.	Belcher, Mike(R)[B+]2025
HB206 03:33:02.279 - 12:29:54 PM	Public Hearing	relative to government agent entries into secured premises.	Spillane, James(R)[A]2025
HB321 04:29:59.199 - 1:26:51 PM	Public Hearing	requiring the division of motor vehicles to extend a fine payment period for certain motor vehicle violations from 30 days to 90 days if the driver requests the extension.	Veilleux, Daniel(D)[F]2025
HB330 04:40:15.718 - 1:37:07 PM	Public Hearing	relative to establishing penalties for violations of the confidentiality of motor vehicle records.	Ulery, Jordan(R)[A-]2025
HB338 05:06:19.040 - 2:03:11 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the authority of fish and game officers.	Popovici-Muller, Daniel(R)[A-]2025
HB338 05:11:38.400 - 2:08:30 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the authority of fish and game officers.	Popovici-Muller, Daniel(R)[A-]2025
HB343 05:49:32.240 - 2:46:24 PM	Public Hearing	relative to reporting regarding the northern border alliance program.	Murray, Alissandra(D)[D-]2025
HB468 0290h 06:18:28.000 - 3:15:20 PM	Executive Session	(New Title) establishing the crime of and penalties for unlawful use of unmanned aircraft systems and changing the reckless driving minimum penalties.	Roy, Terry(R)[B]2025
HB196 0192h 06:22:05.040 - 3:18:57 PM	Executive Session	(New Title) relative to annulling certain cannabis possession offenses.	Wheeler, Jonah(D)[D-]2025

HB62: Representative Roy, Rockingham 32 Support00:02:25.239 - 8:59:17 AM; Representative Roy introduced House Bill 62 at the request of the Department of Defense. The bill aims to allow military protective orders to be recognized and used as evidence in civilian court proceedings for issuing civilian protective orders. This is part of a national program to enhance cooperation between the military and states on issues affecting military members and their families. Roy highlighted the importance of New Hampshire's ranking in military friendliness, which impacts military base closures and the state's economy, emphasizing the need for continued good relations with the military.
HB62: Nicole Desay Bixler, Deputy Adjutant General, Department of Military Affairs and Veteran Services Support00:07:30.680 - 9:04:22 AM; Nicole Desay Bixler supported the bill, reiterating that it would allow military protective orders to be used as evidence in civilian proceedings and enable the Adjutant General to reimburse travel expenses for victims attending civilian court proceedings. She clarified that military protective orders are only valid on military installations and do not extend to civilian areas.
HB62: Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Chang, State Judge Advocate, New Hampshire National Guard Support00:10:00.079 - 9:06:52 AM; Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Chang supported the bill, explaining the proposed legislative changes received from the Department of Defense. The changes involve allowing the Adjutant General to reimburse travel expenses and admitting military protective orders as evidence in civilian proceedings. He described these changes as simple and straightforward.
HB62: Kevin Grady, State Veterans Advisory Committee, Hooksett, NH Support00:11:59.920 - 9:08:51 AM; Kevin Grady, a 25-year Air Force veteran and a 27-year resident of Hooksett, New Hampshire, spoke on behalf of the State Veterans Advisory Committee. He introduced the committee, which is chartered under state RSA 115:A-8 and consists of 20 veteran service organizations. Grady, who also serves as the legislative chairman for the Air and Space Forces Association, explained their process of reviewing legislation for veteran impact and deciding their stance. He strongly supported HB62, highlighting its alignment with the Department of Defense's priorities for military families. Grady emphasized the importance of protecting military families, especially through the enforcement of military protective orders which could help in obtaining civilian restraining orders for Guard members living off base.
HB62: Stephen Anders, Assistant County Attorney, Merrimack County Support00:22:17.440 - 9:19:09 AM; Stephen Anders from Merrimack County expressed support for the legislation, noting that multiple meetings were held to refine the amendment. He clarified that under current rules, military protective orders could potentially be used in civil protective order hearings, and the amendment simply formalizes this possibility. Anders also addressed the use of military protective orders in other legal contexts, indicating they could be relevant in obtaining stalking orders but might not be admissible in criminal trials due to rules of evidence.
HB62: Pamela Kyg, New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence Support00:24:21.279 - 9:21:13 AM; Pamela Kyg, representing the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, strongly supported the amendment to HB62. She discussed the collaboration with the Department of Defense and local law enforcement in developing the legislation. Kyg highlighted the importance of providing financial assistance to victims to offset costs related to legal proceedings and stressed the significance of including military protective orders in state law to enhance protections for victims of domestic and sexual violence across both civilian and military jurisdictions.
HB62: Captain Clark Gart, Nashua Police Department Support00:27:31.679 - 9:24:23 AM; Captain Clark Gart, a Marine Corps veteran from the Nashua Police Department, spoke in support of House Bill 62 FN and its proposed amendment to paragraph 8. He emphasized the importance of making military protective orders admissible as evidence in civilian court proceedings under New Hampshire's domestic violence statute. Gart explained that the approval of this bill would enhance the ability of civilian law enforcement to protect individuals covered by these orders from abuse. He highlighted the gap between military and civilian justice systems, noting that military protective orders, which are issued to maintain order and protect victims from various forms of abuse, are currently unenforceable by New Hampshire law enforcement. He provided a scenario where a civilian officer could use a military protective order to support an investigation into domestic violence. Gart also addressed the potential challenge of requiring the issuing commanding officer to testify in court, which could be hindered by the officer's frequent deployments. He concluded that the amendment would be a crucial step in ensuring the safety and protection of victims by allowing these orders to be admissible without the need for the commanding officer's testimony.
HB62: Representative Shar Information Only00:31:52.480 - 9:28:44 AM; Representative Shar sought clarification on whether military protective orders would be admissible in criminal trials under the proposed amendment to House Bill 62. He referenced a statement from attorney Enders suggesting that such orders would only be admissible in proceedings where the Rules of Evidence do not apply. Captain Gart confirmed his understanding that the proposal would allow military protective orders to be admissible in criminal trials, although he expressed some uncertainty.
HB62: Representative GTH Information Only00:33:17.720 - 9:30:09 AM; Representative GTH clarified whether Captain Gart was representing the Nashua Police Department or himself. Gart confirmed he was there as a member of the Nashua Police Department.
HB62: Representative Murray Information Only00:33:55.480 - 9:30:47 AM; Representative Murray informed the committee that the Department of Defense had submitted their testimony online, which she had emailed to the committee. She also noted that no other states currently have similar legislation.
HB87: Representative Saor D. Schaner from Rockingham District 30 Support00:53:40.640 - 9:50:32 AM; Representative Saor D. Schaner introduced HB 87 FN, which aims to prevent individuals from posting signs on land they do not own. He emphasized that the bill intends to protect private property rights by making it a misdemeanor to post no hunting or trespassing signs on property without authorization. He mentioned the absence of the prime sponsor, Representative Love, and briefly discussed the implications of the bill from a private property perspective.
HB102: Prime Sponsor Support01:18:21.360 - 10:15:13 AM; The prime sponsor introduced HB102, which aims to provide local oversight of federal law enforcement actions within counties. The bill was revised to address previous criticisms from law enforcement, particularly sheriffs, by removing controversial elements and focusing on the traditional role of sheriffs in overseeing federal actions. He highlighted the historical context of sheriffs as a check on federal power and discussed recent instances where federal law enforcement practices were questioned. The sponsor clarified that the bill would allow discretionary oversight for actions against non-citizens, and he addressed concerns about the potential workload and cost for sheriffs, suggesting that the frequency of federal actions is not high enough to be burdensome. He also mentioned that he would research historical cases and current statistics to support the bill's implementation.
HB102: Representative Share Information Only01:27:58.960 - 10:24:50 AM; Representative Share inquired about historical precedents during the Civil Rights era where federal law enforcement acted over the objections of local sheriffs. The prime sponsor acknowledged being vaguely aware of such instances, mentioning them as examples of federal checks on state power, particularly under the 14th Amendment for equal protection.
HB102: Representative N Information Only01:28:58.880 - 10:25:50 AM; Representative N questioned the practical implications of the bill on sheriffs' resources and county funding, emphasizing the potential workload increase. The prime sponsor responded by suggesting that the frequency of federal actions would not dramatically increase sheriffs' workload and mentioned that local law enforcement might already be present at such actions, potentially shifting from a participatory to a non-participatory role. He also offered to research statistics on federal actions in New Hampshire to better assess the impact.
HB102: Representative S Information Only01:32:21.760 - 10:29:13 AM; Representative S asked if other states have similar legislation. The prime sponsor was unaware of any similar legislation but noted that some states like Idaho have practices in place where sheriffs observe federal actions.
HB102: Representative Newman Information Only01:32:21.760 - 10:29:13 AM; Representative Newman questioned a specific deletion in the bill related to the Constitution of the United States and extradition, but was informed that it pertained to another bill to be discussed later.
HB102: The Honorable Timothy Oran Oppose01:33:36.159 - 10:30:28 AM; The Honorable Timothy Oran expressed concerns about HB102, suggesting that the role of overseeing federal actions might be more appropriate for the Attorney General rather than county sheriffs. He argued that sheriffs in New Hampshire have limited powers and their duties do not align with the historical English concept of sheriffs. He recommended that the bill be either killed or significantly amended to shift oversight to the Attorney General, questioning its necessity and relevance to New Hampshire's legal context.
HB102: Joe H, Gilmanton Information Only01:36:08.920 - 10:33:00 AM; Joe H from Gilmanton provided a detailed testimony, focusing on the need for the bill to address issues after the fact rather than preemptively. He referenced the Grey Lord case in Chicago, where FBI investigations into corrupt judges were compromised by potential collusion with local sheriffs. He shared personal experiences related to the Ed Brown case, discussing issues with court procedures, federal overreach, and non-compliance with state statutes. He also mentioned his interactions with federal agents and his attempts to seek justice through legal channels, highlighting systemic issues and the need for oversight.
HB102: Stephen Anders, Assistant County Attorney, Merrimack County Oppose01:43:49.840 - 10:40:41 AM; Stephen Anders from the Merrimack County Attorney's Office expressed concerns about House Bill 102. He highlighted the impracticality of requiring the sheriff to oversee all federal law enforcement actions within the county, given the multitude of federal agencies involved. He discussed the complexities of federal law enforcement operations and the potential issues with the sheriff's involvement in the planning and execution of federal warrants and arrests. Anders suggested that existing legal systems, such as civil remedies and constitutional protections, are already in place to address potential federal overreach.
HB103: Prime Sponsor Support02:01:50.840 - 10:58:42 AM; The prime sponsor introduced House Bill 103, emphasizing its simplicity despite its controversial nature. The bill aims to establish a process for the state of New Hampshire to grant asylum to individuals politically persecuted by other states, invoking the 10th Amendment and the principle of federalism. The sponsor referenced the governor of New York's recent refusal to extradite someone to Louisiana as an example of state power. The bill is seen as a response to the increasing use of 'lawfare' and political targeting, with the sponsor suggesting that if it can happen to a president, it can happen to anyone. The sponsor acknowledged potential constitutional conflicts but argued that the fundamental principle of protecting citizens' rights should prevail.
HB103: Representative Rhods Information Only02:10:32.400 - 11:07:24 AM; Representative Rhods inquired about the process described in the bill, specifically focusing on the part where asylum could be granted by a majority vote of the House of Representatives. They sought clarification on how such a vote would be executed and how the House would become aware of the need for such a vote.
HB103: Prime Sponsor Information Only02:11:37.360 - 11:08:29 AM; The Prime Sponsor explained that the bill prescribes two methods for granting asylum: one by the governor's decision and the other by a majority vote of the House of Representatives. They clarified that any member could bring a motion to the floor for a vote on asylum, addressing concerns about the political nature of the decision and potential confusion with existing federal law.
HB103: Representative Newman Information Only02:13:00.040 - 11:09:52 AM; Representative Newman raised concerns about the deletion of a clause in the bill that references the U.S. Constitution's control over state law. They questioned the implications of removing this clause, suggesting it might politicize the asylum process further. The Prime Sponsor responded by explaining that the Constitution's control is inherent and that the removal aimed to clarify state law's precedence over federal law in extradition matters.
HB103: Stephen Andw, Assistant County Attorney, Merrimack County Oppose02:17:57.160 - 11:14:49 AM; Stephen Andw expressed opposition to the bill, citing the existing uniform criminal extradition law (RSA 612) and its function across states. He detailed the process of extradition, including the governor's role and the potential for the person to challenge extradition. He argued that the bill could make New Hampshire a sanctuary state for those claiming political prosecution, which he believed would be unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court rulings like Puerto Rico v. Branstad.
HB206: Representative, Sponsor of HB206 Support03:33:02.279 - 12:29:54 PM; The speaker, who is the sponsor of HB206, opened the public hearing and explained that the bill is a resubmission of a previous bill that passed the House but was not enacted due to concerns from department heads about potential impacts on audits and inspections. The new version includes a clarification on page two, line 11, section n, stating that the bill does not limit the access of any governmental or regulatory agency to premises as provided by law. The main purpose of the bill is to protect private property adjacent to homes from unwarranted government access, addressing the Open Fields doctrine which allows government access to private property outside the immediate curtilage without a warrant. The speaker mentioned that several states have already passed similar laws to restore privacy rights on posted or fenced properties.
HB206: Senator Tim McHugh, Senate District 11 (Marlborough, Milford, Amherst, Wilton) Support03:38:57.399 - 12:35:49 PM; Senator Tim McHugh spoke in support of HB206, emphasizing the importance of protecting privacy and property rights as enshrined in the state's constitution. He referenced the passage of the Digital Privacy Act as an example of the state's commitment to privacy. He argued that the bill is not intended to hinder law enforcement but to require a warrant for accessing private property, citing examples from Montana and Tennessee where similar laws have been upheld. He highlighted the bill's provisions that make evidence obtained in violation of the rules inadmissible in court, while also allowing for necessary exceptions in cases of consent or exigent circumstances. He urged the committee to support the bill and mentioned his willingness to help it progress through both legislative bodies.
HB206: Alist Whitney, The Institute for Justice Support03:42:49.760 - 12:39:41 PM; Alist Whitney, a legislative counsel at The Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm, testified in support of the bill. Whitney emphasized that the bill aims to close the 'Open Fields loophole,' protecting private property rights without hindering law enforcement activities. They clarified that the bill does not prevent government agents from approaching homes or conducting non-law enforcement related jobs, but only applies to private land that is posted. Whitney addressed concerns about the bill's scope, suggesting potential amendments for clarification, and mentioned other states like Vermont and New York that have implemented similar protections without significant issues for law enforcement. They also discussed the limitations of the bill regarding aerial surveillance and drones, indicating these would require separate legislation.
HB206: Stephen Erson, Assistant County Attorney, Marac County Oppose03:50:22.000 - 12:47:14 PM; Stephen Erson, an assistant county attorney from Marac County, opposed the bill, arguing that existing constitutional protections already require law enforcement to obtain a warrant for areas where there is an expectation of privacy. Erson expressed confusion about the term 'back 40' and its implications for public access to private land in New Hampshire. He criticized the bill's definitions and scope, particularly the differentiation between secured premises and private land, and questioned the necessity and effectiveness of the bill's proposed remedies compared to constitutional protections. Erson also responded to questions about the Open Fields Doctrine and its implications for property privacy, suggesting that reasonable expectations of privacy need to be clearly established.
HB206: Representative Gon Support03:57:52.600 - 12:54:44 PM; Representative Gon supported the bill, emphasizing its importance in protecting private property and individual rights against government intrusion without a warrant. They distinguished between public recreational use of unmarked land and the expectation of not encountering uniformed government officials in an official capacity on private property. Gon argued that the bill is essential in fulfilling the legislature's duty to protect citizens' rights.
HB206: Eric Sergeant, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Right of Way Administrator Information Only03:59:35.199 - 12:56:27 PM; Eric Sergeant from the Department of Transportation provided information regarding the impact of the bill on their operations. He explained that the department conducts field surveys to establish public right of way limits, which may require entering private lands. Sergeant highlighted that these surveys are for locating boundary markers and not for criminal investigations. He expressed concern that the bill's current language might prevent their work, although he noted that the bill's latest version seems to address these concerns by allowing access as provided by law under RSA 228:33.
HB206: David Goldstein, Retired Chief, Franklin Police Department, Part-time Deputy, Rockham County Sheriff's Office Oppose04:03:22.680 - 1:00:14 PM; David Goldstein, a retired police chief and current part-time deputy, opposed the bill, arguing that existing guidelines already sufficiently regulate law enforcement's actions. He provided examples of potential complications the bill could create, such as issues with civil process service, protection orders, and pursuing fleeing suspects. Goldstein questioned the necessity of the bill, suggesting it might be an overreach and could restrict law enforcement's ability to act effectively in various scenarios, including homicide investigations and fire inspections. He emphasized the need for a balanced approach and suggested the bill be killed.
HB206: Representative of New Hampshire Municipal Association Information Only04:12:16.119 - 1:09:08 PM; The speaker from the New Hampshire Municipal Association expressed neutrality on HB206 but raised concerns about the definition of 'government agent' in the bill. They noted that this definition could include municipal officials, potentially causing confusion with existing processes such as obtaining administrative warrants under RSA 595b for property assessments. The speaker highlighted the need for clarity to avoid duplication with current statutes and to prevent municipal officials from inadvertently violating the law while performing their duties. They also discussed the potential need for extensive education of municipal officials if the bill passes, given its broad scope.
HB206: Bill Brigh, Major with the New Hampshire State Police Information Only04:20:44.000 - 1:17:36 PM; Major Bill Brigh from the New Hampshire State Police testified to provide additional perspectives on HB206. He noted that the bill's intent seemed broader than initially understood, covering more than just law enforcement. He mentioned that standard practices in New Hampshire require law enforcement to obtain permission or a warrant to enter posted property, in line with constitutional and evidentiary rules. Brigh raised concerns about a section of the bill that could potentially invalidate arrests based on evidence improperly obtained from posted property, suggesting it might be too broad and could lead to unintended consequences. He also referenced the Open Fields Doctrine and a case, State vs. Smith, which supports this doctrine in New Hampshire.
HB321: Dan Veu, Representative from Hillsboro 34 in Amherst Support04:29:59.199 - 1:26:51 PM; Representative Dan Veu introduced HB321, which aims to provide drivers with more time to pay fines for motor vehicle violations without court appearances. The bill allows for an extension of up to 90 days from the DMV, with a possible second extension upon proof of financial hardship. Veu argued that this would prevent unnecessary license suspensions due to financial difficulties, thus avoiding a cycle of debt and hardship. He emphasized that the bill supports financially struggling residents by offering a manageable payment window and reducing court involvement. The financial impact is minimal, with a one-time system upgrade cost of $36,000. Veu also addressed concerns about the proof required for extensions and suggested flexibility in the implementation process.
HB321: Dan Veu, Representative from Hillsboro 34 in Amherst Support04:29:59.199 - 1:26:51 PM; Representative Dan Veu from Hillsboro 34 in Amherst expressed his support for HB321, highlighting the potential benefits of the bill. He discussed the issue of fines related to motor vehicle violations and the potential impact of the bill in reducing the need for court appearances, suggesting that any attempt to improve the situation should be considered. He finished speaking at 04:29:59.199.
HB321: Representative New Support04:36:17.480 - 1:33:09 PM; Representative New expressed support for HB321 and raised a question regarding the practicality of court appearances for minor violations. He suggested that the bill could be improved by specifying that the process could be done remotely, which would alleviate the burden of taking time off work to attend court. This would align with the intent of reducing the need for physical court appearances.
HB330: Representative Roy from Rockingham 32 Information Only04:40:15.718 - 1:37:07 PM; Representative Roy from Rockingham 32 introduced HB330 on behalf of Representative Ol, who was unable to attend. He explained that the bill addresses the privacy of driver's licenses and the dissemination of information retained from scanning. He noted concerns about the scanning of licenses when purchasing items like cigarettes and questioned the necessity and destination of the captured information.
HB330: Mora Weston, New England Connectivity and Telecommunications Association Oppose04:42:01.878 - 1:38:53 PM; Mora Weston, representing the New England Connectivity and Telecommunications Association, testified in opposition to HB330. She highlighted the potential unintended consequences of the bill, including restrictions on businesses collecting and reviewing basic identifying information necessary for public safety. She mentioned that the bill could hinder the use of driver's licenses as employment credentials and could complicate identity verification processes, potentially increasing risks of fraud. She urged the committee to recommend the bill as inexpedient to legislate due to its vague language and significant issues.
HB330: Ryan Hail, New Hampshire Bankers Association Oppose04:47:44.360 - 1:44:36 PM; Ryan Hail, Vice President of Government Relations for the New Hampshire Bankers Association, opposed HB330, stating it conflicts with federal law and would disrupt routine banking operations. He explained that the bill's restrictions on the use and handling of driver's license information would prevent banks from complying with federal requirements like the US Patriot Act and the Bank Secrecy Act, which mandate the collection and retention of identification documents to combat fraud and money laundering. He argued that the bill's penalties were excessive and could discourage banks from operating in New Hampshire. He also mentioned other legislative efforts, such as House Bill 77 and Senate Bill 255, that address similar issues more effectively.
HB330: Tom Prol, New Hampshire Retail Association Oppose04:57:01.480 - 1:53:53 PM; Tom Prol from Demmer Prol and Thomas, representing the New Hampshire Retail Association, testified in opposition to HB330. He explained that retailers use scanning of driver's licenses to protect age-restricted items like alcohol and tobacco, as well as for other purposes such as credit card applications and vehicle rentals. Prol mentioned that they have worked with the House Commerce Committee on amended language to allow scanning for age-restricted items but prevent retaining and sharing of the information. He believes that existing laws, including RSA 260:14 and Senate Bill 255, provide adequate privacy protections and argued that HB330 is unnecessary and should be found inexpedient to legislate.
HB330: Rick Fabrizio, Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire Oppose05:01:13.798 - 1:58:05 PM; Rick Fabrizio, Senior Director of Advocacy and Public Affairs for the Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire, opposed HB330, stating it would restrict and complicate the collection of basic information for routine industry protocols. He mentioned that the bill could conflict with the New Hampshire Driver Privacy Act (RSA 260:14) and the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act. Fabrizio highlighted the New Hampshire Data Privacy Act (SB 255, now RSA 507) as a comprehensive consumer data protection law. He expressed concerns about the bill's fine structure, noting that the $100,000 fine for violations is significantly higher than existing penalties.
HB338: Daniel Popovic Miller, Windham, Rockingham 17 Support05:06:19.040 - 2:03:11 PM; Daniel Popovic Miller, representing Windham in Rockingham 17, introduced HB338 as its prime sponsor. He explained that the bill aims to align the standards needed for various law enforcement branches to stop and search people, specifically bringing conservation officers to the same probable cause standard as other law enforcement agencies. Miller emphasized that the intent is to ensure equal protection of rights across different law enforcement encounters and noted that previous, more extensive legislation on this topic did not advance.
HB338: Kyle Baker, New Hampshire Wildlife Federation Oppose05:09:47.040 - 2:06:39 PM; Kyle Baker, representing the New Hampshire Wildlife Federation, opposed HB338. He stated that the Federation, with over 55,000 members from 55 different fishing and game clubs, views the legislation as unnecessary. Baker highlighted the close relationship between sportsmen and conservation officers in New Hampshire and expressed concerns that differing standards could make New Hampshire a magnet for poaching. He noted that this is the 11th time such legislation has been proposed and that there has been no reported issue from their community.
HB338: Unnamed Speaker, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Oppose05:11:38.400 - 2:08:30 PM; The speaker discusses the limited circumstances under which conservation officers use expanded search powers, emphasizing that these powers are necessary and not seen as a problem needing to be fixed. They express concerns about unintended consequences if the bill moves forward, particularly regarding the timing and necessity of these powers in cases involving shellfish and poaching. They also mention the importance of being able to stop and search based on reasonable suspicion to protect natural resources.
HB338: Ward Burn, Commercial Lobster Fisherman, Portsmouth, New Hampshire Oppose05:14:30.878 - 2:11:22 PM; Ward Burn, representing New Hampshire commercial fishermen, strongly opposes the bill, stating it would devastate both commercial and recreational fishing industries. He argues that limiting officers to act upon probable cause would waste time, allowing violations to go unchecked and depleting the ecosystem. Burn emphasizes the importance of inspections for sustainable fishery management and describes the current cooperative relationship between fishermen and conservation officers. He warns that the proposed changes would create costly delays for fishermen and potentially harm the industry.
HB338: Steven Enders, Assistant County Attorney, Merrimack County Oppose05:25:52.958 - 2:22:44 PM; Steven Enders opposes the bill, suggesting it be found inexpedient to legislate due to its ambiguity and lack of necessity. He argues that removing the phrase 'without a warrant' creates confusion and that reasonable suspicion is the appropriate standard for conservation officers. He compares the proposed changes to regular law enforcement practices and explains the difficulty of developing probable cause in remote hunting and fishing scenarios.
HB338: Kevin Jordan, Chief of Law Enforcement, New Hampshire Fish and Game Oppose05:30:11.840 - 2:27:03 PM; Colonel Kevin Jordan opposes the bill, emphasizing the difference between articulable suspicion and probable cause. He explains that requiring probable cause for stops and searches would severely limit the ability of conservation officers to enforce laws, particularly in remote areas. Jordan highlights the historical judicial review of the existing law, its necessity for resource protection, and the potential loss of federal funding if the bill passes. He provides examples of how current laws are applied and stresses the professionalism and effectiveness of his officers.
HB343: Alisandra Murray, Representative, Manchester Ward 9, Hillsborough District 20 Support05:49:32.240 - 2:46:24 PM; Representative Alisandra Murray introduces a bill to codify specific data reporting from the Northern Border Alliance. She notes that the bill passed out of committee the previous year and aims to collect data on the residence of individuals detained. Murray discusses recent data showing a low number of border-related detentions compared to other law enforcement activities, suggesting that better data collection could help allocate funding more effectively, especially in a tight budget year.
HB468 0290h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only06:18:28.000 - 3:15:20 PM; The speaker, who appears to be the chair, opens the executive session on House Bill 468 concerning drones. They propose an amendment, which they struggle to locate initially, but eventually find and proceed with. The amendment includes exemptions for the press corps and addresses issues related to drones interfering with firefighting equipment, referencing recent events in California. The speaker emphasizes the importance of the bill due to safety concerns raised by the state police regarding drone operations. The amendment is seconded by Representative Harry Gath. The motion to pass the bill with the amendment is unanimously approved.
HB196 0192h: Unnamed Speaker Support06:22:05.040 - 3:18:57 PM; The speaker, likely the chair, opens the executive session on House Bill 196 and moves to pass it with Amendment 0192h, seconded by Representative Sher. The bill, brought by Representative Wheeler, aims to allow forgiveness for certain past offenses, specifically misdemeanor or violation level offenses that stand alone. The speaker highlights the impact of such convictions, noting barriers to joining the military, owning firearms, obtaining security clearances, and accessing subsidized housing. The amendment addresses concerns about the workload on the court system and the broadness of the bill, aiming to balance forgiveness with necessary restrictions. The motion to adopt the amendment and pass the bill is unanimously approved, with plans to place it on consent.

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