Committee Summary for Senate Judiciary (02/18/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB142 00:06:40.479 - 12:05:11 PM	Public Hearing	establishing the department of children's services and juvenile justice.	Carson, Sharon(R)[B]2025
SB142 00:16:25.000 - 12:14:56 PM	Executive Session	establishing the department of children's services and juvenile justice.	Carson, Sharon(R)[B]2025
SB258 00:17:11.280 - 12:15:42 PM	Public Hearing	(New Title) establishing crimes related to the fraudulent use of gift cards.	Ricciardi, Denise(R)[B]2025
SB258 2025-0428s 00:28:48.600 - 12:27:19 PM	Executive Session	(New Title) establishing crimes related to the fraudulent use of gift cards.	Ricciardi, Denise(R)[B]2025
SB290 00:31:01.120 - 12:29:32 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the definition of "torture" in animal abuse cases.	Watters, David(D)[D-]2025
SB261 01:33:22.560 - 1:31:53 PM	Public Hearing	requiring that custodial interrogations be recorded, establishing a fund to make grants to state law enforcement agencies to purchase equipment to enable such recordings, and making an appropriation therefor.	McGough, Tim(R)[B+]2025
SB139 02:40:25.720 - 2:38:56 PM	Public Hearing	creating a private right of action in civil rights cases.	Fenton, Donovan(D)[F]2025
54 03:10:01.439 - 3:08:32 PM	Executive Session	Unclear	Likely Text to Speech Error on Bill #
54 03:10:01.439 - 3:08:32 PM	Executive Session	relative to penalties for refusing a breathalyzer test	Likely Text to Speech Error on Bill #
141 03:13:09.560 - 3:11:40 PM	Executive Session	relative to the Innocence Project	Likely Text to Speech Error on Bill #
149 03:18:35.920 - 3:17:06 PM	Executive Session	relative to the crime of aggravated driving	Likely Text to Speech Error on Bill #
266 03:20:11.880 - 3:18:42 PM	Executive Session	relative to safety and accountability of drivers under 18 years	Likely Text to Speech Error on Bill #
48 03:21:49.080 - 3:20:20 PM	Executive Session	relative to competency and restoration	Likely Text to Speech Error on Bill #

SB142: Sharon Carson, Senate District 14 (Londonderry, Hudson, Auburn) Information Only00:06:40.479 - 12:05:11 PM; Senator Carson introduced Senate Bill 142, which aims to establish a new department focused on children's services and juvenile justice. She highlighted the bill's previous introduction and its importance to her. Due to high costs and ongoing discussions with the Department of Health and Human Services, she requested the bill be re-referred to the committee for further work to reduce costs and refine the proposal in collaboration with the department.
SB142: Patricia Tilly, Department of Health and Human Services Support00:08:13.280 - 12:06:44 PM; Patricia Tilly expressed the department's initial concerns with SB142 but was supportive of working with Senator Carson to explore strategies that would better serve children and families. She emphasized the department's commitment to using strategic priorities and an upcoming system assessment to guide their work. The focus would be on addressing the multiple needs of youth and families, improving long-term outcomes, and reducing reliance on residential care.
SB142: Holly Stevens, Nami New Hampshire Oppose00:11:04.160 - 12:09:35 PM; Holly Stevens, representing Nami New Hampshire, expressed concerns about the bill's impact on the transition from youth to adult services and its high costs. She mentioned these concerns were detailed in their written testimony and supported the sponsor's request to have the bill re-referred for further discussion.
SB142: Tracy Fowler, New Hampshire Charitable Foundation Oppose00:12:20.160 - 12:10:51 PM; Tracy Fowler spoke in opposition to SB142, highlighting potential unintended negative consequences for children and youth. The foundation was concerned about the significant funding needed for a new department and suggested that funds could be better used to strengthen existing infrastructure and community-based services. They offered to continue working with the department and community partners to improve services for kids and families.
SB142: Committee Information Only00:16:25.000 - 12:14:56 PM; The committee moved into an executive session where a motion was made to re-refer SB142 to the committee. The motion was approved unanimously, and the committee then moved out of the executive session.
SB258: Denise Rardy, State Senator for District 9 (Bedford to Henniker) Support00:17:11.280 - 12:15:42 PM; Senator Rardy introduced Senate Bill 258 aimed at addressing the growing issue of fraudulent retail transactions, specifically gift card fraud. She detailed the sophisticated methods used by organized retail crime organizations and emphasized New Hampshire's vulnerability due to its sales tax-free status. The bill was developed with input from various stakeholders, and she requested the committee's support to pass the bill with the proposed amendment to combat this issue effectively.
SB258: Brandon Gad, Senior Assistant Attorney General, New Hampshire Attorney General's Office Support00:22:06.360 - 12:20:37 PM; Brandon Gad, representing the Attorney General's Office, testified in support of Senate Bill 258. He highlighted the challenges prosecutors face with current theft statutes when dealing with modern theft methods involving gift cards. He explained that the bill simplifies the determination of the value of stolen gift cards, which is crucial for charging offenses accurately. The bill also adjusts the section from 637:10 to 637:2 to ensure definitions apply across all theft statutes, making it easier for law enforcement to handle gift card fraud cases effectively.
SB258: Curtis Bard, President & CEO, New Hampshire Retail Association Support00:27:18.159 - 12:25:49 PM; Curtis Bard testified in support of Senate Bill 258, emphasizing the vulnerability of New Hampshire to gift card fraud due to its sales tax-free status. He provided an infographic and a press release to illustrate how the crime occurs and its impact. Bard stressed that the bill addresses a critical issue where the value of gift cards is only realized upon activation, which the legislation aims to rectify, thereby aiding law enforcement and deterring such crimes.
SB258 2025-0428s: Committee Members Information Only00:28:48.600 - 12:27:19 PM; The committee moved into an executive session to discuss and vote on Senate Bill 258. They considered Amendment 2025-0428s, which was offered and seconded. After brief discussion, the amendment was passed by consent. Subsequently, the committee voted to pass the bill as amended, with no opposition recorded.
SB290: Senator David Waters, District 4 Information Only00:31:01.120 - 12:29:32 PM; Senator David Waters introduced Senate Bill 290, which aims to define torture in the context of animal abuse. He explained that the definition was developed by the Governor's Commission on the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, following feedback from law enforcement about the need for clarity in existing statutes. The definition aligns with similar laws in other states and is intended to provide clear guidelines while ensuring protections for necessary veterinary and agricultural practices. Waters acknowledged concerns about the application to farm animals and expressed willingness to refine the language to address these issues.
SB290: Unnamed Committee Member Information Only00:37:58.960 - 12:36:29 PM; An unnamed committee member asked Senator Waters about the distinction between intentional and negligent acts in the context of the bill. They discussed how the bill's language covers both negligent and purposeful acts or omissions, aiming to provide comprehensive coverage while maintaining necessary protections and clarity for law enforcement.
SB290: Senator Joan O'Brien Information Only00:41:11.680 - 12:39:42 PM; Senator Joan O'Brien addressed a question regarding the definition of negligence in relation to animal welfare, specifically asking if a person who fails to tend to a wounded animal could be considered negligent. She discussed a case in her town where a dog owner did not bring his hunting dogs inside during an ice storm, leading to concerns from neighbors and intervention from law enforcement and an animal welfare organization. The dog owner eventually agreed to house the dogs in the garage. O'Brien referred to RSA 6448, suggesting that necessary shelter is covered under this statute. She also discussed the inclusion of 'torture' in the law, explaining that it would be up to law enforcement to determine if behaviors fit the definition of torture, which involves causing intensive or prolonged pain, serious physical injury, or death to an animal.
SB290: Senator Howard Pearl Oppose00:46:07.280 - 12:44:38 PM; Senator Howard Pearl expressed opposition to SB290, citing concerns about the unintended consequences of including accepted animal agricultural practices under the definition of torture. He discussed a case where a lack of veterinary presence led to unnecessary euthanization of farm animals, highlighting the practical application of laws. Pearl argued that the current statute, which he had worked on extensively during his time in the Environment and Agriculture Committee, was sufficient without the added definition of torture. He urged caution in moving forward with the bill.
SB290: Stacy Ober, New England government relations manager for the American Kennel Club Oppose00:48:23.559 - 12:46:54 PM; Stacy Ober, representing the American Kennel Club, opposed SB290, arguing that the proposed definition of torture was overly broad and could result in inappropriate criminal charges for lawful actions. She provided examples of scenarios where the law could be misinterpreted, such as in veterinary practices, hunting, rodeos, and law enforcement activities involving animals. Ober expressed concerns that the definition could have a chilling effect on these activities and urged the committee to consider these issues.
SB290: Kurt Aronberg, New Hampshire state director of Humane Society of the United States Support01:01:20.079 - 12:59:51 PM; Kurt Aronberg supported SB290, emphasizing the need for a definition of torture in animal welfare laws. He argued that from an animal's perspective, the intent behind the act causing torture is irrelevant. Aronberg noted his role on the Governor's Commission on the Humane Treatment of Animals and mentioned that other members of the commission, including Senator Waters and Dr. Zazula, also supported the bill. He expressed willingness to consider amendments but stressed the importance of including the definition of torture in the statute.
SB290: Unnamed Committee Member Information Only01:03:04.039 - 1:01:35 PM; An unnamed committee member expressed concern about the proposed definition of torture in SB290, suggesting that it could inadvertently criminalize unintentional acts, such as hitting a domesticated animal with a car. They questioned whether the definition was too broad and if narrowing it to align more closely with the ordinary definition of torture would be beneficial. The member noted their support for animal welfare but highlighted the potential unintended consequences of the bill's current language.
SB290: Angela Ferrari, Dog Owners of the Great State Oppose01:07:05.119 - 1:05:36 PM; Angela Ferrari, representing Dog Owners of the Great State, a nonprofit organization dedicated to responsible animal care since 1991, opposes SB290. She argues that the bill attempts to criminalize actions that are already illegal under existing statutes, potentially leading to unintended legal risks for responsible pet owners, livestock managers, and veterinary professionals. Ferrari highlights that current laws adequately address cruelty and inhumane treatment without needing to define 'torture.' She references federal laws like the Animal Welfare Act and the PCT Act, which effectively enforce animal cruelty without defining 'torture.' Ferrari criticizes the bill for its potential to create legal inconsistencies, misuse, and difficulties in amending poorly defined terms. She concludes by urging the committee to find the bill inexpedient to legislate, stating that no definition is better than a bad definition.
SB290: Unnamed Committee Member Information Only01:12:08.560 - 1:10:39 PM; An unnamed committee member questions Angela Ferrari about specific concerns regarding animal husbandry practices that might be affected by the bill. Ferrari responds with an example involving the birthing process of dogs, explaining that interventions such as helping a mother dog with a stuck puppy could potentially be misconstrued as torture under the proposed bill. She emphasizes that such actions, though potentially painful, are necessary to prevent loss of life and are part of responsible animal husbandry.
SB290: Rob Johnson, New Hampshire Farm Bureau Federation Oppose01:14:30.360 - 1:13:01 PM; Rob Johnson, representing the New Hampshire Farm Bureau Federation, opposes SB290. He argues that torture is inherently understood as an intentional act and questions the necessity of the bill, stating it addresses already illegal actions while raising concerns about common animal husbandry practices. Johnson provides examples from cattle management, such as castration and dehorning, which could be misconstrued under the bill's language. He stresses that the legislation is unnecessary and asks the committee to find it inexpedient to legislate.
SB290: Unnamed Committee Member Information Only01:16:53.520 - 1:15:24 PM; An unnamed committee member seeks clarification from Rob Johnson about the practices of castration and the pain involved in animal husbandry. Johnson explains that procedures like banding in young animals can cause discomfort, but the bill's language on intensive pain and suffering could raise questions for their membership. He clarifies that younger animals may not require pain relief during certain procedures, unlike older ones where veterinarians are involved.
SB290: Susan Adams, Our Town Kennels and Cold Springs Healing Foundation Oppose01:20:53.239 - 1:19:24 PM; Susan Adams, from Our Town Kennels in Peterborough and Cold Springs Healing Foundation in New Ipswich, speaks in opposition to SB290. She argues that the bill could lead to personal interpretations of the law based on emotions rather than facts. Adams provides examples of accidental harm to pets, suggesting that such incidents could be misinterpreted as intentional torture. She emphasizes the passion and responsibility of pet owners and breeders, warning against legislation that might exploit or negatively impact those who care for animals for the benefit of others.
SB290: Joan O'Brien, Amherst Support01:24:56.440 - 1:23:27 PM; Joan O'Brien, from Amherst, supports SB290 and suggests an improvement by including 'drowning' in the definition of torture. She explains that law enforcement requested this definition to aid in proving torture cases. O'Brien addresses concerns from farmers and breeders, suggesting their worries imply uncertainty about their practices causing pain and suffering. She cites the case of Dewey the dog to illustrate the need for a clear definition of torture, particularly regarding drowning. O'Brien urges the committee to support the bill and expedite its effective date to benefit all stakeholders.
SB290: Mara Fields Oppose01:29:35.639 - 1:28:06 PM; Mara Fields opposes SB290, arguing that intentional acts like drowning are already recognized as cruel and do not require a legal definition of torture. She believes the current definition of torture in the bill is too broad and could lead to misinterpretation and difficulty for New Hampshire citizens. Fields also mentions her nomination to the Governor's Commission on cruelty to animals, where not all members supported the bill's definition due to its inclusion of negligence.
SB261: Senator Tim Miku, Senate District 11 (Marlborough, Amherst, Milford, Wilton) Support01:33:22.560 - 1:31:53 PM; Senator Tim Miku introduces SB261, advocating for the electronic recording of custodial interrogations. He emphasizes the ubiquity of recording technology and its potential to ensure transparency and accuracy in legal proceedings. Miku cites the experiences of other states like Texas and Arizona, where such practices have improved justice processes. He acknowledges that some departments already practice this but argues for it to be standard, suggesting it could lead to fewer trials and quicker resolutions. He supports minor amendments proposed by the Department of Corrections and invites questions.
SB261: Unnamed Committee Member Information Only01:38:28.800 - 1:36:59 PM; An unnamed committee member questions Senator Miku about specific language in SB261 regarding parole violators and the option for individuals to request that interrogations not be recorded. Miku explains that the Department of Corrections seeks to add words to clarify certain sections and suggests that the option for individuals to stop recording is related to their right to not answer questions. He defers to legal experts for further clarification on the latter point.
SB261: Stephen Anderson, Assistant County Attorney, Merrimack County Oppose01:43:40.239 - 1:42:11 PM; Stephen Anderson, an assistant county attorney from Merrimack County, opposes SB261. He highlights the value of recordings in legal proceedings but argues that the bill's language is confusing and could lead to a false sense of what must be recorded. Anderson explains that under current New Hampshire law, not all interrogations at detention facilities would require recording, and he criticizes the bill for repeating definitions unnecessarily. He disagrees with allowing suspects to control whether they are recorded, citing the WAP statute's allowance for one-party recordings in certain cases. Anderson suggests examining the body-worn camera statute instead of passing SB261 and offers to answer questions.
SB261: Stephen Anderson, Assistant County Attorney, Merrimack County Information Only01:43:40.239 - 1:42:11 PM; Stephen Anderson was discussing clarifications needed in the bill regarding the distinction between suspects and witnesses during interrogations. He suggested that making it clear who is being interrogated, a suspect or a witness, would improve the bill. He also mentioned the potential chilling effect on witnesses if they knew their statements were being recorded without an option to opt-out. He concluded by discussing the definition of custodial interrogation, indicating that a witness could be considered in custody under certain circumstances.
SB261: Jane Graham, Strategic Communications Administrator, New Hampshire Department of Corrections Information Only01:57:08.280 - 1:55:39 PM; Jane Graham, accompanied by Steve Aror, a hearings officer at the Department of Corrections, expressed a neutral stance on the bill but requested specific language changes. They suggested adding 'administrative disciplinary investigation' to the section regarding administrative disciplinary hearings in state correctional facilities. They also wanted to clarify that routine management operations in correctional facilities should not be subject to the bill's recording requirements. Additionally, they recommended adding a section to allow statements made by staff, not necessarily law enforcement, to be admissible in court if they disclose criminal activity. Lastly, they requested that the bill include interactions with probation officers, similar to parole officers, to maintain clarity and trust in those interactions.
SB261: Patrick Sden, New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, Retired Chief of the GS toown Police Department Oppose02:02:02.360 - 2:00:33 PM; Patrick Sden, representing the New Hampshire Association of Chiefs of Police, opposed Senate Bill 261. He argued that current constitutional protections are sufficient for custodial interrogations and that the bill would complicate law enforcement's job, potentially leading to inadmissible confessions due to equipment costs and installation delays. He highlighted the diverse standards between state and federal courts that could create confusion and the practical challenges of recording outside designated interview rooms. He also mentioned the issue of individuals unwilling to be recorded, citing his experience with confidential informants, and concluded by asking the committee to find the bill inexpedient to legislate.
SB261: Bill Brigh, Major, New Hampshire State Police Oppose02:06:06.719 - 2:04:37 PM; Bill Brigh, a Major with the New Hampshire State Police, opposed the bill, emphasizing the unpredictable nature of investigations and the potential for scenarios where recording might not be feasible. He shared concerns about individuals refusing to be recorded and the potential loss of critical information. He also critiqued the bill's vague language regarding the maintenance of recording equipment and argued that the allocated grant money was insufficient for outfitting police departments with necessary equipment. He stressed the importance of handling evidence properly and the high costs associated with setting up recording systems in interview rooms.
SB261: Winnie Ye, Innocence Project Support02:11:03.760 - 2:09:34 PM; Winnie Ye, a state policy advocate at the Innocence Project, expressed support for SB261, which aims to strengthen the integrity of the criminal legal system by promoting the recording of custodial interrogations. She noted that the bill has been revised over the years with input from stakeholders, including the New Hampshire State Law Enforcement Accreditation Commission. The bill is intended to be solutions-oriented, not burdensome to law enforcement, and includes provisions to ensure fairness in justice administration. Ye emphasized that recording interrogations can prevent wrongful convictions, promote safer communities, improve transparency, and protect the rights of individuals during interrogations.
SB261: Cynthia Muso, New England Innocence Project Support02:14:55.960 - 2:13:26 PM; Cynthia Muso, a staff attorney at the New England Innocence Project, supported SB261, emphasizing its narrow focus on custodial interrogations conducted in places of detention. She addressed concerns about the bill's scope, stating that it does not require recording of non-custodial interactions. Muso highlighted that the bill accommodates various scenarios where recording might not be possible by allowing for reasonable justification for not recording, ensuring statements remain admissible. She pointed out that most police departments in New Hampshire already have the capability to record, and the bill includes funding to support implementation. Muso stressed the importance of recording for preventing wrongful convictions and ensuring transparency and fairness in the legal system.
SB261: Jim Trum, Retired Detective, Washington DC Police Department Support02:30:24.439 - 2:28:55 PM; Jim Trum, a retired detective from the Washington DC Police Department, supported SB261 based on his extensive experience in homicide detection and interrogation practices. He shared a personal anecdote about a false confession case from 1994, illustrating how recording the entire interrogation process can prevent wrongful convictions by providing a clear record of the interrogation. Trum emphasized the benefits of recording for both law enforcement and the judicial system, including preventing unjust acquittals and ensuring the integrity of confession evidence. He argued that the bill would ensure consistency across law enforcement agencies in New Hampshire and overcome objections to recording by highlighting its necessity and benefits.
SB139: Senator Donovan Fenton, District 10 Support02:40:25.720 - 2:38:56 PM; Senator Donovan Fenton introduced SB139, which aims to strengthen civil rights protections in New Hampshire by allowing individuals to bring private actions for civil rights violations. He highlighted the significant increase in civil rights complaints since 2017 and the need for a more effective system to handle these incidents. The bill would not replace the Attorney General's role but enhance it by informing the office of private actions and allowing intervention in cases of public interest. Fenton stressed the importance of enabling individuals to defend their rights and ensure that New Hampshire remains a place of dignity and respect for all residents.
SB139: Senator Donovan Fenton, District 10 Support02:40:25.720 - 2:38:56 PM; Senator Fenton supports SB139, which he mentioned includes an amendment requested by the Attorney General's office. This amendment ensures that the Attorney General is alerted of any actions made under the bill. He emphasized that the bill does not supplant the Attorney General's role but enhances it. He described the bill as almost a housekeeping measure, noting a significant increase in civil rights violation complaints since 2017.
SB139: Senator Information Only02:42:29.720 - 2:41:00 PM; The Senator engaged in a brief exchange about the amendment to SB139, confirming that it was mentioned in Senator Fenton's testimony and is intended to ensure the Attorney General's involvement in any actions taken under the bill. The Senator clarified that the amendment enhances the Attorney General's role without supplanting it.
SB139: Representative Jonah Support02:43:52.760 - 2:42:23 PM; Representative Jonah supports SB139, describing it as creating a private right of action for individuals in civil rights cases. He noted a rapid increase in civil rights complaints in New Hampshire and mentioned that similar legislation in surrounding New England states includes private causes of action. He suggested retaining the bill to observe the outcome of a similar house version.
SB139: Michael Atkins, Attorney at Shaheen and Gordon, Peterboro, NH, and Legal Redress Chair for the Greater Nashua NAACP Support02:46:31.720 - 2:45:02 PM; Michael Atkins, representing the NAACP, supports SB139, which adds a private cause of action for victims of unlawful conduct under RSA 354B. He highlighted a 465% increase in civil rights complaints since 2017, affecting multiple regions including Nashua, Manchester, and the Seacoast. He noted that the amendment would allow the Attorney General to intervene in private actions, aligning New Hampshire with neighboring states that provide similar rights.
SB139: Senior Assistant Attorney General Sean Lock, New Hampshire Department of Justice Information Only02:51:50.560 - 2:50:21 PM; Sean Lock provided informational testimony on SB139, stating that the Department of Justice does not take a position on the bill but supports the amendment. He explained the background of the Civil Rights Act, the role of the Attorney General in enforcing it, and the increase in complaints since the Civil Rights unit's inception. He noted that the amendment would ensure the department's ability to intervene in private actions to protect public interest.
54: Committee Information Only03:10:01.439 - 3:08:32 PM; The committee discussed SB139 in an executive session, focusing on the amendment and its implications. They confirmed their support for the amendment and decided to recommend the bill for passage as is, with a vote of 3 to 1 in favor.
54: Committee Information Only03:10:01.439 - 3:08:32 PM; In the executive session on bill 54, the committee discussed increasing penalties for refusing a breathalyzer test from 180 days to 360 days as an administrative safety measure to promote road safety and facilitate quick rehabilitation. A motion to pass the bill as is was made and passed with a vote of 3 to 1.
141: Committee Information Only03:13:09.560 - 3:11:40 PM; The committee discussed bill 141, which pertains to the Innocence Project and aims to narrow the exceptions for newly discovered evidence. They debated the implications of new scientific evidence and its potential to exonerate individuals. The committee voted 3 to 1 in favor of passing the bill without amendments.
149: Committee Information Only03:18:35.920 - 3:17:06 PM; The committee reviewed bill 149, which addresses the crime of aggravated driving. They discussed the bill's purpose and confirmed there were no amendments to consider. The committee passed the bill with a unanimous vote in favor.
266: Committee Information Only03:20:11.880 - 3:18:42 PM; The committee discussed bill 266, which focuses on increasing penalties for young drivers engaging in dangerous driving behaviors. They noted the bill's graduated penalties and judicial discretion provisions. The committee passed the bill with a unanimous vote in favor.
48: Committee Information Only03:21:49.080 - 3:20:20 PM; The committee debated bill 48, which aims to prevent individuals deemed incompetent from languishing in jails or mental health institutions. They discussed the bill's potential impact and the need for a formal restoration process. The committee decided to re-refer the bill for further consideration, with a vote to withdraw the motion to pass it in its current form.

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