Committee Summary for Senate Judiciary (01/28/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB49 00:16:38.600 - 12:15:50 PM	Public Hearing	(New Title) relative to the unlawful operation or use of unmanned aircraft systems.	Birdsell, Regina(R)[B-]2025
SB149 00:38:19.960 - 12:37:31 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the crime of aggravated driving while intoxicated.	Birdsell, Regina(R)[B-]2025
SB54 00:43:04.800 - 12:42:16 PM	Public Hearing	relative to refusal of consent to testing to determine alcohol concentration and penalties for aggravated driving while intoxicated.	Gannon, Bill(R)[B-]2025
SB15 0044s 01:45:20.599 - 1:44:32 PM	Executive Session	(New Title) relative to incorporating hard labor as a sentencing option for capital murder and serious sexual assaults on children, defining hard labor, establishing medical exemptions and penalties for abuse thereof, providing alternative punitive measures for legitimate medical exemptions, and authorizing jury determination of hard labor in qualifying cases.	Gannon, Bill(R)[B-]2025
SB15 0109s 01:52:37.360 - 1:51:49 PM	Executive Session	(New Title) relative to incorporating hard labor as a sentencing option for capital murder and serious sexual assaults on children, defining hard labor, establishing medical exemptions and penalties for abuse thereof, providing alternative punitive measures for legitimate medical exemptions, and authorizing jury determination of hard labor in qualifying cases.	Gannon, Bill(R)[B-]2025
SB71 02:07:51.760 - 2:07:03 PM	Executive Session	relative to cooperation with federal immigration authorities.	Gannon, Bill(R)[B-]2025

SB49: Regina Birdsell, State Senator for District 19, representing Derry, Hampstead, and Windham Support00:16:38.600 - 12:15:50 PM; Senator Birdsell introduced Senate Bill 49, which was requested by the Department of Safety. The bill aims to address the unlawful use of small unmanned aircraft systems (drones). It establishes penalties for various offenses, including operating a drone that interferes with law enforcement, firefighting, or emergency response operations (misdemeanor), disrupting the flight of human-occupied aircraft (Class A misdemeanor), causing damage to human-occupied aircraft in flight (Class B felony), causing an aircraft to crash resulting in death or serious injury (Class A felony), flying over correctional facilities (misdemeanor or Class B felony), and operating drones equipped with dangerous devices (Class B felony). She mentioned an amendment from the Department of Safety to add references to federal laws.
SB49: Unnamed Committee Member Information Only00:19:30.559 - 12:18:42 PM; The committee member inquired about the fiscal note (FN) for the bill, noting that many bills were pushed out quickly. They mentioned that the FN was likely still under review and that the cost summary could be found on a website, indicating that the information was speculative at that point.
SB49: Christopher Ball, Department of Safety Support00:21:11.520 - 12:20:23 PM; Christopher Ball expressed the Department of Safety's support for the bill, emphasizing the importance of addressing the illegal use of drones. He mentioned that the legislation was a two-year effort involving multiple stakeholders like the Department of Transportation and the Department of Corrections. He noted that they would submit technical corrections to the bill, including references to FAA regulations and the Aeronautics Act.
SB49: Trisha Lambert, Administrator for the Bureau of Aeronautics, Department of Transportation Support00:23:31.480 - 12:22:43 PM; Trisha Lambert supported the bill and highlighted the collaborative effort over two years to balance the use of drones with safety and regulation. She mentioned the Bureau's role in promoting aviation, including drones, and stressed the importance of an educational program to ensure officers are knowledgeable about drone regulations. She emphasized the bill's intent to target nefarious and repeat offenders while promoting responsible drone use.
SB49: Unnamed Committee Member Information Only00:26:36.240 - 12:25:48 PM; The committee member asked for clarification on the definition of a small unmanned aircraft system (UAS) and how regular consumers, especially those near airports, could know where and how to fly their drones safely. They were informed that most drone manufacturers provide guidance aligned with FAA regulations, and some drones have built-in software to alert users about restricted areas.
SB49: Sadus Dickinson, New Boston Space Force Station, Department of Defense Support00:28:32.360 - 12:27:44 PM; Sadus Dickinson, representing the New Boston Space Force Station, expressed full support for the bill due to its importance to military missions. He highlighted the station's role in national security and satellite communications, emphasizing the need to prevent unauthorized drone flights over military installations. He proposed an amendment to enhance penalties for flying over military installations to at least a misdemeanor for the first offense and a felony for subsequent offenses to prevent potential threats and data collection by adversaries.
SB49: Helen Hanks, Department of Corrections Support00:32:20.799 - 12:31:32 PM; Helen Hanks, Commissioner of the Department of Corrections, expressed strong support for Senate Bill 49, which aims to make it unlawful to fly drones over correctional facilities. She highlighted the risks drones pose to safety and security, particularly when used to drop contraband or facilitate illegal activities. Hanks referenced incidents in Idaho and Georgia where drones were used to drop cell phones, leading to escapes and loss of life. She emphasized the need for the bill's sanctions on felonies and misdemeanors for such activities. Hanks also noted that while the bill does not oversee county jails, it might be worth considering their inclusion.
SB49: Jay Dara, Chief of Investigations, Department of Corrections Support00:33:53.200 - 12:33:05 PM; Jay Dara, accompanying Commissioner Hanks, discussed the Department's experience with a 90-day free pilot program for drone detection over their facility in Concord. Although no criminal drones were detected, they observed three to four instances of careless drone usage. Dara noted the limitations of current drone detection technologies, which do not detect all types of drones. He supported the legislation, stating it would help prevent contraband drops at correctional facilities.
SB49: Unnamed Senator Information Only00:35:13.359 - 12:34:25 PM; An unnamed senator asked about the pilot program, specifically whether any incidents occurred. It was clarified that while no criminal drone activities were documented, there were instances of careless drone flying from adjacent areas, such as a cemetery. The senator also inquired about the possibility of radio frequency jamming in the pilot, to which it was responded that such technology is not currently allowed under New Hampshire law.
SB149: Regina Bille, State Senator for District 19 (Derry, Hampstead, Windham) Support00:38:19.960 - 12:37:31 PM; Senator Regina Bille, the prime sponsor of Senate Bill 149, explained that the bill adds wrong-way driving to the list of aggravating factors for driving while intoxicated, potentially elevating it to an aggravated DUI offense. This addition was requested by the Department of Safety due to numerous incidents of wrong-way driving on highways like 93 and 95, which have led to fatalities. Bille emphasized that the bill aims to prevent or eliminate such dangerous behavior.
SB149: Trooper Sam Provenza, New Hampshire State Police Support00:39:59.400 - 12:39:11 PM; Trooper Sam Provenza from the New Hampshire State Police supported Senate Bill 149, highlighting the severe consequences of wrong-way driving, including fatalities and severe injuries due to head-on collisions. He mentioned that between June 2001 and February 2024, there were 629 wrong-way driver calls, many of which involved drivers under the influence. Provenza stressed that the bill would enhance penalties to deter such behavior, increase public awareness, and hold wrong-way drivers accountable.
SB54: Senator William Ganon, District 23 (wine country) Support00:43:04.800 - 12:42:16 PM; Senator William Ganon introduced Senate Bill 54, which aims to address the issue of individuals refusing breathalyzer tests after being arrested for driving under the influence. He explained that the refusal rate in New Hampshire is high, making it difficult to prosecute cases without evidence of intoxication. The bill proposes increasing the penalty for refusal to a one-year license suspension to encourage compliance with breathalyzer tests, which would aid in deterrence, treatment, and rehabilitation efforts.
SB54: Ryan McFarland, Chief Hearings Examiner, Department of Safety Bureau of Hearings Support00:46:36.599 - 12:45:48 PM; Ryan McFarland from the Department of Safety supported Senate Bill 54, detailing the high refusal rates for breathalyzer tests in New Hampshire, which range from 68% to 70% over recent years, significantly higher than the national average of around 24%. He outlined the bill's proposals to increase administrative license suspension times for refusals, consider out-of-state convictions and refusals, incentivize guilty pleas to DWIs with reduced suspension times, and allow suspended sentences for cooperative individuals with high test results. McFarland was joined by Samuel Penza from the New Hampshire State Police to further support the bill.
SB54: Senator (name not specified) Information Only00:51:05.799 - 12:50:17 PM; The senator inquired about the last paragraph of the testimony from Ryan McFarland, focusing on the aspect of giving prosecutors and courts greater discretion in cases involving aggravated DWI. They sought clarification on how the bill would affect penalties and its reciprocity with other states.
SB54: Ryan McFarland, Chief Hearings Examiner, Department of Safety Bureau of Hearings Information Only00:51:51.680 - 12:51:03 PM; Ryan McFarland explained that the bill aims to amend the mandatory jail sentence for aggravated DWI to a discretionary one, where individuals who submit to the test and are over the 0.16 limit would not automatically face jail time but could still receive other penalties like interlock and counseling. He also discussed the bill's provisions for using out-of-state DWI convictions and administrative refusals for subsequent offenses in New Hampshire, highlighting the current loophole where such out-of-state actions are not considered.
SB54: Trooper Provenza, State Police Support00:54:57.960 - 12:54:09 PM; Trooper Provenza expressed the Department of Safety's support for the legislation. He emphasized the bill's aim to add equity to the statute by increasing penalties for refusals while suspending jail time for those who comply. He also clarified that the administrative license suspension discussed is not a criminal or misdemeanor charge but an administrative action.
SB54: Robert Moses, Attorney, Amherst, New Hampshire, New Hampshire Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Oppose00:57:34.599 - 12:56:46 PM; Robert Moses testified in opposition to the bill, arguing that the proposed changes to the implied consent law would make penalties disproportionately punitive rather than remedial. He cited the case of Hudson vs. United States to support his argument and warned of potential constitutional challenges under double jeopardy clauses. He also criticized the DSNV 426 form for not adequately informing drivers of the consequences of refusal, particularly for commercial drivers, and suggested that the form needs to be revised if the amendment passes.
SB54: Senator (name not specified) Information Only01:06:58.680 - 1:06:10 PM; The senator questioned Robert Moses about his views on the existing law and the implications of the proposed changes, particularly regarding the duration of license suspension. Moses explained his concerns about the current scheme and the proposed amendments, highlighting the potential punitive nature of the increased suspension periods and the lack of information provided to drivers about their rights and potential penalties.
SB54: Senator Amis Information Only01:08:48.520 - 1:08:00 PM; Senator Amis asked Robert Moses about the introduction of the hardship license in New Hampshire and its impact. Moses explained that the limited license privilege (LLP) was introduced relatively recently and is only available after a DWI conviction, which he argued defeats the purpose of being presumed innocent. He detailed the restrictive conditions for obtaining an LLP and the financial burdens associated with it, such as the installation of an IID.
SB54: Su Prentice, State Senator, District 5 Support01:14:55.280 - 1:14:07 PM; Senator Su Prentice introduced Senate Bill 143, which focuses on updates to the Impaired Driving Care Management program. The bill seeks to strengthen the program by requiring repeat offenders to attend it multiple times within a five-year window and by allowing out-of-state residents to complete the program in their home state while meeting New Hampshire standards. She emphasized the importance of these changes for public safety, given her background as a paramedic and associate deputy medical examiner.
SB54: Jenny O Higgins, Legislative Liaison and Senior Policy Analyst for Behavioral Health at DHHS Support01:22:39.320 - 1:21:51 PM; Jenny O Higgins supported Senate Bill 143, explaining that the bill would allow out-of-state residents to complete the Impaired Driving Care Management program in their home state, provided it meets New Hampshire's standards. She also highlighted the importance of re-evaluating repeat offenders to ensure they receive necessary treatment, not just education.
SB54: Senator (name not specified) Information Only01:21:04.600 - 1:20:16 PM; The senator asked about the impact of Senate Bill 143 on New Hampshire residents arrested out of state. Jenny O Higgins explained that while the bill focuses on arrests within New Hampshire, it would allow New Hampshire residents to complete the program in-state if their home state accepts it. She also noted the bill's provisions to close loopholes regarding repeat offenders.
SB15 0044s: Senator (name not specified) Support01:45:20.599 - 1:44:32 PM; The senator moved for an 'ought to pass' recommendation on SB15 with amendment number 0044s, emphasizing the bill's focus on mandatory minimum sentences for the manufacture, sale, or dispensing of fentanyl resulting in loss of life. The senator argued that the bill aims to deter such activities, remove offenders from the streets, and send a strong message about the seriousness of distributing deadly substances in New Hampshire.
SB15 0044s: Senator (name not specified) Support01:47:17.000 - 1:46:29 PM; The senator supported the amendment, highlighting that the mandatory sentence would apply specifically to fentanyl distribution, even if done to support an addiction. They stressed the lack of excuse for distributing a substance known to cause death and supported the policy as a necessary deterrent to prevent further fatalities.
SB15 0044s: Senator (name not specified) Oppose01:48:43.000 - 1:47:55 PM; The Senator expressed agreement with the goals of taking fentanyl off the streets and sending a strong message against its sale and use, acknowledging its deadly nature. However, the Senator opposed the amendment due to concerns about the term 'dispenses', fearing it might unfairly penalize individuals, such as college students, who share medication without malicious intent. The Senator advocated for judges, rather than prosecutors, to have the authority in making sentencing decisions based on all evidence presented, suggesting that this would be a more equitable approach.
SB15 0109s: Senator (name not specified) Support01:52:37.360 - 1:51:49 PM; The Senator proposed Amendment 0109s, explaining that after discussions with law enforcement and police chiefs, the amendment adjusted the quantities of fentanyl to 20 grams from a previous lower amount, acknowledging the difficulty in separating the drug from diluents. The amendment also raised the threshold for possession with intent to distribute to 50 grams, aiming to target dealers rather than users. The Senator believed these changes would help garner bipartisan support and effectively address the issue.
SB15 0109s: Senator (name not specified) Support01:54:56.679 - 1:54:08 PM; The Senator supported Amendment 0109s, albeit reluctantly, noting that the increased quantity of 50 grams equates to up to 10,000 lethal doses of fentanyl. The Senator highlighted the issue of fentanyl being mixed with other substances, leading to overdoses due to unknown potency. Despite initial reservations about the amendment going too far, the Senator endorsed it as a reasonable compromise to address the fentanyl crisis.
SB15 0109s: Senator (name not specified) Oppose01:55:59.560 - 1:55:11 PM; The Senator opposed mandatory minimums as proposed, arguing that they have proven ineffective as a deterrent and are costly. The Senator expressed solidarity in addressing the fentanyl issue but believed that mandatory minimums remove judicial discretion, making the process more about the prosecutor's decision than a fair trial. The Senator cited New Hampshire's past experiences with mandatory minimums as evidence of their ineffectiveness and high cost.
SB15 0109s: Senator (name not specified) Oppose01:57:36.000 - 1:56:48 PM; The Senator agreed with the goal of combating fentanyl but opposed the amendment, emphasizing that sentencing decisions should be left to judges who can consider all evidence, including the circumstances of the case. The Senator referenced testimony from prosecutors about indicators of dealing, such as cash and ledgers, suggesting these should influence sentencing rather than result in mandatory minimums. The Senator highlighted the potential deterrent effect of mandatory minimums but remained concerned about their broad application.
SB15 0109s: Senator (name not specified) Support01:59:09.840 - 1:58:21 PM; The Senator supported the amendment, asserting that mandatory minimums act as a deterrent, citing experiences from law enforcement who believe that the certainty of jail time discourages drug trafficking. The Senator also noted that stricter laws could influence where drug activities are conducted, especially near state borders, and emphasized the need to make fentanyl less accessible in New Hampshire as a starting point to address the issue.
SB15 0109s: Senator (name not specified) Oppose02:00:43.199 - 1:59:55 PM; The Senator opposed the amendment, arguing that mandatory minimums do not effectively deter crime and are costly. The Senator cited data from the Pew Charitable Trusts showing a spike in crime in Florida after enacting mandatory minimums and a 50-state study indicating no significant relationship between prison terms and drug-related outcomes. The Senator stressed that New Hampshire's efforts to combat opioid use were showing positive results without mandatory minimums.
SB15 0109s: Senator (name not specified) Support02:04:34.079 - 2:03:46 PM; The Senator supported the amendment, citing data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission that showed lower recidivism rates among offenders with mandatory minimum penalties. The Senator argued that this data supports the theory that mandatory minimums can be effective in deterring crime.
SB15 0109s: Senator (name not specified) Support02:05:20.599 - 2:04:32 PM; The Senator supported the amendment, arguing that it would deter drug trafficking across state borders, especially in border towns. The Senator highlighted the significant quantity of fentanyl involved and stressed the importance of making it less accessible within New Hampshire to protect residents and those in recovery from substance abuse.
SB71: Senator (name not specified) Support02:07:51.760 - 2:07:03 PM; The Senator supported SB71, expressing concern over illegal immigration and crime, citing past issues with welcoming ordinances in towns like Lebanon that restricted cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The Senator emphasized the need for New Hampshire to cooperate with federal law enforcement to address safety concerns.
SB71: Senator (name not specified) Oppose02:09:23.000 - 2:08:35 PM; The Senator opposed SB71, arguing that New Hampshire has managed its immigration issues effectively without the need for such legislation. The Senator pointed out the state's investments in border security and corrections, and corrected misinformation about sanctuary counties in New Hampshire, noting that no such designation exists. The Senator also mentioned significant public opposition to the bill.
SB71: Senator (name not specified) Oppose02:12:10.360 - 2:11:22 PM; The Senator opposed SB71, supporting the correction that no New Hampshire county is designated as a sanctuary county. The Senator highlighted the Association of Counties' opposition to the bill, citing their cooperative relationship with ICE and the potential financial burden on counties if they were required to detain individuals beyond state law provisions.
SB71: Senator (name not specified) Support02:13:41.920 - 2:12:53 PM; The Senator supported SB71, citing incidents of crime by illegal immigrants in New Hampshire and referencing costs incurred by other states due to immigration issues. The Senator emphasized the importance of not having policies that obstruct law enforcement cooperation, such as those in Lebanon, and questioned the state's readiness to handle potential influxes of immigrants.
SB71: Senator (name not specified) Support02:15:45.199 - 2:14:57 PM; The Senator supported SB71, arguing that it would prevent situations where sanctuary policies could lead to the release of dangerous individuals. The Senator discussed the potential costs and logistical challenges of accommodating large numbers of immigrants and stressed the need for preemptive measures to avoid such scenarios.
SB71: Senator (name not specified) Oppose02:18:05.398 - 2:17:17 PM; The Senator opposed SB71, arguing that existing laws already prohibit interference with law enforcement and that no evidence supports the need for such legislation in New Hampshire. The Senator stressed that the state's goals in addressing crime and immigration are aligned, and that the proposed bill does not effectively move towards these goals.
SB71: Senator (name not specified) Information Only02:19:31.040 - 2:18:43 PM; The senator clarifies a previous assertion made by a colleague regarding housing plans for immigrants, pointing out that New Hampshire does not have a right to shelter law like Massachusetts, which has spent significantly on such programs. The senator argues that comparing the two states' programs is misleading as New Hampshire's approach is different. The senator also discusses cooperation with the federal government on immigration enforcement, emphasizing that the state should not hold individuals in detention without federal compensation. The senator mentions the city of Concord's welcoming ordinance, which restricts local cooperation with immigration enforcement, and supports the bill's aim to ban sanctuary cities and mandate cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
SB71: Senator (name not specified) Information Only02:22:40.520 - 2:21:52 PM; The senator continues discussing the bill, focusing on two models for cooperation with federal immigration enforcement: the jail enforcement model and the 287 program. The senator explains that these models allow local police and sheriff's offices to assist with administrative warrants and specific immigration duties on a voluntary basis. The senator emphasizes that these programs are optional and used in several states, suggesting that local law enforcement should have the discretion to participate if they choose.
SB71: Senator (name not specified) Oppose02:24:59.439 - 2:24:11 PM; The senator expresses opposition to the bill, arguing that it is unnecessary and an overreach, as evidenced by the significant opposition from 126 people compared to only eight in support. The senator criticizes the lack of information on law enforcement participation and suggests that the Attorney General's office could handle the notification of available programs rather than enacting a law. The senator supports local law enforcement discretion but finds the bill's approach excessive.
SB71: Senator (name not specified) Information Only02:27:25.840 - 2:26:37 PM; The senator discusses an amendment to the bill that would make it a violation for an illegal alien to drive with certain types of licenses that are distinguishable from regular licenses. The amendment specifies that licenses from states like Massachusetts, which issue the same type of license to all residents, would not be affected. The senator clarifies that the first offense under this amendment would be treated as a violation, not a criminal offense.
SB71: Senator (name not specified) Information Only02:29:37.439 - 2:28:49 PM; The senator raises concerns about the gray areas in immigration status, noting that there are multiple categories of people who may not be legally documented but are not necessarily illegal immigrants. The senator discusses the potential impact of the bill on these groups, particularly how a violation could affect their legal processes and public safety. The senator questions the effectiveness and necessity of creating a database to identify licenses from undocumented individuals, suggesting it might only affect people from Delaware and Connecticut.
SB71: Senator (name not specified) Information Only02:32:44.040 - 2:31:56 PM; The senator inquires about the legality of entering the country without processing, questioning whether such an act is considered criminal. The senator receives clarification that while it might make someone deportable, it is not necessarily a criminal offense until processed through the judicial system.
SB71: Senator (name not specified) Information Only02:33:29.640 - 2:32:41 PM; The senator asks about the process of obtaining driver's licenses in other countries for American citizens, using the example of their son living in Canada. The senator seeks to understand if other countries allow driving with a US license and how this relates to the bill's focus on undocumented immigrants' licenses.
SB71: Senator (name not specified) Information Only02:34:38.319 - 2:33:50 PM; The senator clarifies the discussion on undocumented immigrants, focusing on different categories of legal status and the specific intentions of the bill. The senator mentions the example of a family member going through the process of legalizing through a US citizen spouse petition, questioning if the bill's scope was intended to include such cases. The senator suggests that the bill might sweep up too many people unintentionally and emphasizes the need for more understanding of immigration statuses.

Gannon, Bill(Chairman)(R)[B-]2025	Abbas, Daryl(V Chairman)(R)[B-]2025	Carson, Sharon(R)[B]2025
Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2025	Reardon, Tara(D)[F]2025