Committee Summary for Senate Judiciary (04/08/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB482 00:11:13.680 - 12:09:29 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the penalty for driving over 100 miles per hour.	Roy, Terry(R)[B]2024
HB776 00:14:16.639 - 12:12:32 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the crime of aggravated driving while intoxicated.	Roy, Terry(R)[B]2024
HB195 00:22:54.960 - 12:21:10 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the expectation of privacy in the collection and use of personal information.	Lynn, Bob(R)[A]2024
HB522 01:49:42.960 - 1:47:58 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the expectation of privacy in personal information maintained by the state.	Erf, Keith(R)[A]2024
HB146 02:08:42.320 - 2:06:58 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the use of body-worn cameras.	Flanagan, Jack(R)[B+]2020

HB482: Lieutenant Chris Storm, New Hampshire State Police, Office of Highway Safety Support00:11:13.680 - 12:09:29 PM; Lieutenant Chris Storm testified in support of HB482, which aims to increase penalties for drivers exceeding 100 mph. He highlighted a significant rise in such incidents on New Hampshire roadways, noting a 230% increase in drivers traveling over 100 mph on the interstate system alone, as observed from aircraft. Storm emphasized the necessity of stringent penalties to hold dangerous drivers accountable and ensure the safety of all road users. The proposed changes include increasing the fine to $750 and extending the license suspension from 60 to 90 days for reckless driving over 100 mph.
HB776: Lieutenant Chris Storm, New Hampshire State Police, Office of Highway Safety Support00:14:16.639 - 12:12:32 PM; Lieutenant Chris Storm supported HB776, which proposes to classify wrong-way driving as an aggravated DWI offense. He pointed out the severe dangers associated with wrong-way driving, especially when influenced by drugs or alcohol, and referenced the daily occurrence of such incidents on New Hampshire roadways. Storm mentioned tragic cases to underscore the urgency of stricter enforcement and penalties, which would align wrong-way driving with the penalties for aggravated DWI, including increased fines and license suspension periods.
HB195: Representative Bob Lynn, Windham Support00:22:54.960 - 12:21:10 PM; Representative Lynn spoke in support of HB195, emphasizing its bipartisan nature and its passage in the House the previous year. He clarified that HB195 is a disclosure bill, contrasting it with Senate Bill 255, which regulates a broader range of businesses and aspects beyond just disclosure. He highlighted that HB195 focuses on entities like credit card companies, insurance companies, and utilities, requiring an opt-in consent for disclosure of personal information, which he believes adds an important layer of protection compared to the opt-out mechanism in SB255. He also mentioned that the bill allows disclosure for legitimate purposes and presented a proposed amendment that he believed would strengthen the bill by clarifying implicit aspects of the current text.
HB195: Representative Marjorie Smith, Durham Support00:28:10.480 - 12:26:26 PM; Representative Smith also supported HB195, joining Representative Lynn in their testimony. She was set to speak further on the bill but was interrupted by a question from a Senator, which led to a discussion about the bill's provisions regarding government requests for information without a subpoena.
HB195: Senator (unnamed) Information Only00:29:17.039 - 12:27:33 PM; The Senator raised concerns about the provisions in HB195 that allow government entities to request personal information without a subpoena, questioning the looseness of the 'good cause' requirement under part A of section two. The discussion clarified that the decision to disclose information based on a 'good cause' request lies with the business holding the information, not the government entity, unless a court order is involved.
HB195: Unnamed Senator Information Only00:32:36.480 - 12:30:52 PM; The senator discussed the implications of data disclosure by information holders. They suggested that if information is disclosed without good cause, it could lead to a complaint to the Attorney General, potentially resulting in legal action. They also addressed a follow-up question about the process when a request for information is denied, indicating that the agency seeking information might simultaneously seek a warrant within a 5-day period.
HB195: Unnamed Representative Information Only00:34:48.800 - 12:33:04 PM; The representative inquired about the applicability of Graham Leech to the discussed legislation. They expressed concerns about potential overlaps between federal and state laws that could increase costs for businesses, particularly national insurance companies, due to dual compliance requirements.
HB195: Mar Smith, Representative from Durham Support00:35:49.200 - 12:34:05 PM; Representative Mar Smith from Durham expressed frustration with the lack of federal action on data privacy, emphasizing the state's responsibility to act. They referenced last year's successful bill and stressed the importance of addressing privacy issues specific to New Hampshire. Smith highlighted a Consumer Reports study indicating non-compliance with data privacy laws across states and emphasized the importance of enforcement.
HB195: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:39:32.680 - 12:37:48 PM; The speaker reinforced the findings of the Consumer Reports study, stating that compliance with data protection laws is not assured and that privacy laws are ineffective without enforcement. They compared this situation to speeding laws being ignored due to lack of enforcement and mentioned the common experience of receiving targeted ads based on online behavior.
HB195: Unnamed Speaker Support00:41:07.560 - 12:39:23 PM; The speaker discussed the history of state privacy protections since 2018 and the challenges posed by corporate lobbying. They emphasized the recent constitutional amendment on privacy in New Hampshire and urged serious consideration of the legislation to protect citizens' privacy.
HB195: Unnamed Senator Information Only00:41:54.760 - 12:40:10 PM; The senator questioned the decision not to include a private right of action in the bill, explaining that extensive discussions occurred within the judiciary committee. They noted that a different bill, HB522, allows for a private right of action against the state but not against private actors. They discussed the rationale behind this compromise and the potential impact on the Attorney General's resources.
HB195: Unnamed Senator Information Only00:43:00.280 - 12:41:16 PM; The senator continued to discuss the decision against including a private right of action in the bill, emphasizing the newness of the regulatory area and the need for businesses to adapt. They mentioned their personal shift in perspective after considering the differences between private corporations and the state as adversaries, and the challenges this would pose to the Attorney General.
HB195: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:46:43.480 - 12:44:59 PM; The speaker discussed the role of the Attorney General's office in representing the state versus the people, highlighting a potential confusion in their responsibilities. They emphasized the seriousness of the ongoing problem of data privacy and the state's cautious approach in handling such issues. They mentioned the passage of a constitutional amendment and legislation the previous year, and the current effort to fine-tune last year's legislation.
HB195: Andrew Kingman, State Privacy and Security Coalition Oppose00:48:21.200 - 12:46:37 PM; Andrew Kingman, representing the State Privacy and Security Coalition, expressed opposition to HB195. He argued that the bill attempts to fit a square peg into a round hole by modifying last year's comprehensive privacy law without using the same terms and types of data. He highlighted the existing comprehensive law's regulation of data disclosure, including opt-in consent for sensitive data and consumer opt-out options. Kingman emphasized the potential confusion for businesses and consumers due to the different terms and scopes between HB195 and the existing law, suggesting that the bill should be voted as inexpedient to legislate.
HB195: Mora Weston, New England Cable and Telecommunications Association (NECA) Oppose00:57:14.400 - 12:55:30 PM; Mora Weston, representing NECA, opposed HB195, advocating for the development of the recently enacted RSA 507H. She noted that the current law is well understood and complied with by the regulated community, offering protections and rights to consumers. Weston criticized HB195 for its imprecise definitions and broad scope, which could disrupt network operations and digital commerce. She highlighted specific issues like the requirement for opt-in consent for all personal information, including for operational purposes like payroll, and inconsistencies with existing laws. Weston recommended voting HB195 as inexpedient to legislate, citing potential unintended consequences.
HB195: Lieutenant Steven McCauley, New Hampshire State Police Information Only01:04:01.359 - 1:02:17 PM; Lieutenant Steven McCauley from the New Hampshire State Police provided neutral testimony on HB195. He expressed concerns about the ambiguity in the definition of 'good cause' within the bill, particularly on page three, lines 110 and 18. McCauley highlighted the potential for different interpretations of 'good cause' by various providers, which could lead to inconsistencies and delays in investigations. He also discussed the implications of the bill's language on exigent circumstances, such as Amber Alerts, and the potential risks to investigations if the information is disclosed to the subscriber. McCauley emphasized the need for clarity in the bill to ensure that law enforcement can act swiftly and effectively in emergencies without compromising the safety of individuals involved in investigations.
HB195: Senator Information Only01:08:09.599 - 1:06:25 PM; The Senator asked Lieutenant McCauley about the definition of 'good cause' and its implications on law enforcement's ability to obtain information from third-party providers without a subpoena. The discussion focused on whether the language in the bill would allow for timely information sharing in emergencies, such as Amber Alerts, and whether the term 'reasonably necessary' could be added to clarify the situation. McCauley agreed that the current language could pose challenges in emergency situations and suggested that more specific language might be needed to address these concerns.
HB195: Senator Information Only01:15:26.640 - 1:13:42 PM; The Senator continued the discussion with Lieutenant McCauley, focusing on the potential scenarios where law enforcement might disagree with a third-party provider on the necessity of disclosure. McCauley explained that in such cases, law enforcement would have to make a difficult decision about proceeding with or without the information, considering the potential consequences of disclosure. He emphasized the urgency of exigent circumstances and the time it takes to obtain a search warrant, highlighting the need for clear guidelines to ensure effective and timely investigations.
HB195: Warren Cormarmac, Assistant Attorney General, New Hampshire Department of Justice Information Only01:20:41.040 - 1:18:57 PM; Warren Cormarmac, representing the New Hampshire Department of Justice, raised concerns about the weak penalty provisions in HB195. He highlighted that the $1,000 penalty per violation is too low to deter violations effectively, especially for third-party providers. He compared it to RSA 507H, where penalties can reach up to $10,000 per violation, and requested that HB195 be aligned with this standard to give the Department of Justice the tools needed to enforce the statute effectively.
HB195: Robert Dedle, Attorney and President of Gallagher Calhoun and Garchaw Law Firm, representing New Hampshire Bankers Association Oppose01:24:05.600 - 1:22:21 PM; Robert Dedle, representing the New Hampshire Bankers Association, testified in opposition to HB195. He expressed concerns about the lack of an entity-level exemption, similar to what is provided in SB25, which could lead to confusion and fragmented compliance obligations for financial institutions. He also highlighted the ambiguity in the bill regarding the standards for beneficial information sharing and emergency situations, which could hinder fraud prevention efforts. He requested a recommendation of inexpedient to legislate.
HB195: Michelle Heaton, Director of Life and Health, New Hampshire Insurance Department Information Only01:30:15.440 - 1:28:31 PM; Michelle Heaton, from the New Hampshire Insurance Department, expressed concerns about the bill's impact on the insurance industry. She noted that the definition of third-party providers includes insurance companies, which could lead to regulatory conflicts since insurance is traditionally regulated by the department. She also mentioned the potential administrative burdens of the bill's notification requirements and its overlap with existing privacy protections in insurance laws. She did not take a position on the bill but suggested there could be a fiscal impact if insurance remains subject to it.
HB195: Neil Kirk, Resident of Weare Support01:41:39.040 - 1:39:55 PM; Neil Kirk, a resident of Weare, expressed strong support for HB195, citing concerns about privacy violations, particularly with telephone companies selling call data. He argued that the bill aligns with the public's expectation of privacy, as evidenced by the high voter approval for a related constitutional amendment. He suggested that while the bill may need amendments, it should be considered for interim study rather than being killed, to address the concerns raised during the hearing and to ensure robust privacy protections.
HB522: Representative Keith Urf, Weare Support01:49:42.960 - 1:47:58 PM; Representative Keith Urf discussed the purpose of HB522, which is to prevent government entities from creating or maintaining databases of personal information beyond what is legally required. He emphasized that the bill aligns with constitutional privacy rights and has passed the House on the consent calendar and in previous forms. The amendment to the bill provides clear definitions and specifies that government entities cannot acquire or use personal information from third-party providers without specific statutory authorization. The bill includes exemptions for law enforcement, regulatory enforcement, emergencies, and individual consent, and violations are classified as misdemeanors. Urf stressed the importance of legislative action to protect privacy in an era where individual privacy is increasingly at risk.
HB522: Senator Information Only01:53:14.480 - 1:51:30 PM; A Senator asked Representative Urf for a real-world example of government storing personal identifiable information without legal authority. Urf acknowledged the difficulty in providing a specific example but emphasized the importance of the bill in preventing such actions. He noted the ease with which databases can be created and the potential future misuse of such data, particularly with advancements in artificial intelligence.
HB522: Representative Information Only01:55:10.400 - 1:53:26 PM; A Representative inquired about the application of HB522 to schools collecting information for public health purposes, such as vaccine compliance. Urf responded by questioning whether such collection is statutorily allowed and suggested consulting an attorney for a precise answer. He distinguished between creating databases and using information for short-term needs, indicating the bill's focus on preventing the former.
HB522: Neil Support01:57:38.480 - 1:55:54 PM; Neil clarified that HB522 applies only to government entities and does not affect the private sector. He explained that the bill sets boundaries on government access to personal data from third-party providers without expanding or reducing current access. The exemptions listed in the bill allow for current government practices to continue, with the requirement that any expansion of data collection must be authorized by statute.
HB522: Representative Lyn Support01:59:26.599 - 1:57:42 PM; Representative Lyn supported the bill, emphasizing its role in preventing government from engaging in unauthorized activities while not hindering legitimate operations. He referenced historical examples of unauthorized surveillance by government agencies and advocated for the bill as a safeguard against similar actions, despite no current evidence of such activities in New Hampshire.
HB146: Jack Flynn, Hillsborough 45 (Hollis, Brookline, Mason, Greenville) Support02:08:42.320 - 2:06:58 PM; Representative Jack Flynn introduced the bill, explaining its origin from a constituent who received a speeding ticket and wanted to contest it with video evidence that was unavailable after 30 days. Flynn argued for the necessity of retaining video evidence for the duration of legal proceedings, especially when it could be exculpatory. He mentioned an amendment proposed by Chairman Roy, which would require video evidence to be kept as long as the case is ongoing.
HB146: Aubrey Friedman, Bridgewater Support02:13:06.880 - 2:11:22 PM; Aubrey Friedman supported the bill, emphasizing the importance of transparency and the availability of video evidence for both law enforcement and the public in case of disputes. He acknowledged potential storage costs but argued that the fiscal note indicated a manageable expense, which he deemed worthwhile for the benefits of transparency and evidence availability.
HB146: Major Davyy, Department of Safety Oppose02:15:18.880 - 2:13:34 PM; Major Davyy opposed the bill, citing it as an unfunded mandate with significant storage costs. He expressed concerns about the financial burden on smaller law enforcement agencies and the unintended consequences of treating traffic summons like misdemeanor cases, which would require extensive tracking and management. He suggested a shorter retention period, like 60 days, as a more practical solution, arguing that most cases would be resolved within that timeframe.
HB146: Jack Flynn, Hillsborough 45 (Hollis, Brookline, Mason, Greenville) Support02:20:52.880 - 2:19:08 PM; Jack Flynn briefly responded to the testimony, agreeing to consider a 60-day retention period for video evidence, acknowledging that it could be a compromise if the evidence was beneficial to the prosecution.

Gannon, Bill(Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Abbas, Daryl(V Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2024
McConkey, Mark(R)	Reardon, Tara(D)