New Hampshire lawmaker’s 107 mph stop and missing body cam footage

A New Hampshire Democratic lawmaker’s decision to conduct a 170-mile-per-hour traffic stop reignited the debate about police body cameras and dashboard cameras after Fox News Digital confirmed that the sheriff’s office involved in the stop had neither.

The lack of body camera and dashboard camera footage has become the focus of a legal battle involving State Rep. Ellen Read, who is fighting charges stemming from two traffic stops in Rockingham County; including when a deputy accused him of driving 107 mph. Read argues that both stops violate a provision of the New Hampshire Constitution that protects legislators as they travel to and from legislative duties.

Without body camera or dashboard camera footage, there is no official record of the traffic stop that sparked a constitutional fight over legislative immunity.

Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office Maj. Christopher Bashaw told Fox News Digital that the agency does not use body-worn cameras or dashboard cameras because there is not enough funding to purchase them.

DEM MP says CONSTITUTION prohibits police from stopping him after allegedly speeding 100 mph

When asked whether deputies use body cameras or dashboard cameras, Bashaw said, “We don’t have that either,” adding that the sheriff’s office wants to equip deputies with the technology.

New Hampshire lawmakers established the Body Worn and Dashboard Camera Fund in 2021 to provide matching grants to local law enforcement agencies to purchase cameras and cover the costs of maintenance, replacement and data storage. Any local law enforcement agency is eligible to apply.

State law also requires agencies that choose to use body cameras to adopt policies that specify when officers must record encounters with law enforcement, including traffic stops. However, the law does not require agencies to purchase or use body cameras.

ICE CONTINUES TO STOP TRAFFIC NATIONWIDE UNDER NEW POLICY REQUIRING BODY CAMERAS

https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2024/08/body-camera-police-istock.jpg (iStock)

It is unclear whether the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office has applied for funding through the state grant program.

Read told Fox News Digital that he has consistently supported legislation regarding body-worn cameras and funds to help law enforcement purchase them. He also said he would be willing to work with the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office to help fund body cameras in the next state budget.

Read said he supports funding for body cameras, although he questions other law enforcement spending, including military-grade equipment and expensive vehicles.

SIGN UP TO GET THE LATEST TRUE CRIME NEWS

He also disputed the sheriff’s claim that he recorded part of the traffic stop on his cell phone.

A police officer wears a body-worn camera affixed to the uniform. New Hampshire created a matching grant program in 2021 to help law enforcement agencies purchase body-worn cameras and dashboard cameras. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)

“These are wrong, I wish I had done so,” Read said. “Officers not wearing/using body cameras is why I invested in a dash cam.”

FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME SQUAD ON X

According to Read, the sheriff’s office misunderstood what happened during the stop. He said he did not record the conversation, and a witness who listened during the cell phone call later testified in court.

Read argued that the constitutional provision protects lawmakers from delay in attending legislative duties, not from prosecution.

DO YOU LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE

“I admitted to the police and the court that I was going approximately 85 miles per hour on the highway,” he said, adding that he was willing to accept a speeding ticket but disputed the deputy’s claim that he was going 107 miles per hour and driving recklessly.

The New Hampshire State House, the New Hampshire state capitol building, seen on February 16, 2023, in Concord, New Hampshire. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

New England Law professor Lawrence Friedman said the constitutional provision dates back centuries and is intended to prevent delays by lawmakers in carrying out their legislative duties, not to provide blanket immunity from traffic stops or criminal prosecution.

GOT A TIP?

“I don’t think it’s true that this provision probably provides some sort of absolute immunity,” Friedman told Fox News Digital. “It’s very unlikely that a court would say, ‘No, just because you’re a lawmaker, you’re absolutely immune from arrest for an infraction for which everyone else could be arrested.'”

Friedman also said the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s refusal to immediately hear Read’s constitutional challenge should not be interpreted as a decision on the merits of his claim.

LISTEN TO THE NEW ‘CRIME AND JUSTICE WITH DONNA ROTUNNO’ PODCAST

“My understanding is that the appeal was not denied,” Friedman said. “The Supreme Court said no because they want to see how it plays out in court.”

Bashaw said the constitutional provision is intended to prevent law enforcement from interfering in legislative business, not to shield lawmakers from liability for dangerous driving.

GET BREAKING NEWS BY EMAIL

“The claim that you’re immune from any kind of arrest… that would be like saying you can drive at that speed, you can commit vehicular homicide, and you’re not allowed to be held accountable for driving to and from session,” Bashaw said.

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

Read acknowledged that the constitutional language could be modernized while preserving its original intent.

“I didn’t write this constitutional provision…it was written before cars existed,” he said.