HB 1283-FN
relative to the use of face recognition technology.
Official record at gencourt.state.nh.us ↗Open this bill in the searchable view → · Follow this bill by RSS
On the record
Quoted from the General Court bill status page, not worked out from the docket.
| Status | HOUSE |
|---|---|
| In the House | INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE |
| Introduced | 1/7/2026 |
| Floor date | 3/5/2026 |
| LSR number | 2863 |
| Local government impact | no |
| Committee code | H10 |
Where it stands
House: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Every floor vote on this bill was a voice or division vote, so there is no record of how individual legislators voted.
A bill goes on the consent calendar when the committee vote was unanimous or nearly so, and any members who dissented did not object to placing it there. It then passes without floor debate. Ten members may file a petition to pull a bill off the consent calendar and have it debated and voted on separately.
Sponsors
Scherr, Buzz(D) Rock 26, McGuire, Dan(R) Merr 14
Prime sponsor in bold. From the General Court sponsor file.
What happened
Every action recorded in the official docket, in order. Each line ends with the journal or calendar that recorded it; where we have the document, that citation links to it.
- January 7, 2026Introduced 01/07/2026 and referred to Judiciary
- February 11, 2026Public Hearing: 02/11/2026 11:30 am GP 230
- February 13, 2026Executive Session: 02/13/2026 10:00 am GP 158
- February 26, 2026Committee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate 02/13/2026 (Vote 18-0; CC)
- March 5, 2026Inexpedient to Legislate: MA VV 03/05/2026
Votes
Roll call tallies and individual votes from the General Court roll call files. Presiding, excused and absent are shown separately: one member presides over each House roll call and does not vote except to break a tie.
Inexpedient to Legislate
Decided on a voice vote. Only the outcome was recorded — there is no count of how any member voted.
Committee reports
Reproduced from the House Calendar in the committee’s own words.
Committee — INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
The Judiciary Committee voted to recommend this bill Inexpedient to Legislate, as the sponsor informed the committee that he felt the bill needed more work. Face recognition technology is being used for multiple purposes and the proper regulation is complex. On the one hand, requiring law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before using facial recognition technology can significantly impede effective investigations by turning a lead-generation tool into a regulated search that requires probable cause before it can even be used. Alternatively, there are legitimate privacy concerns about governmental surveillance, creation of data banks and inhibiting lawful exercise of civil rights. A future middle-ground policy might allow facial recognition for retrospective investigations of serious crimes and for identifying unknown suspects or missing persons, while requiring warrants for real-time tracking, persistent surveillance, or use in monitoring protests or political activity, coupled with accuracy standards, auditing requirements, and public reporting to protect civil liberties without crippling legitimate law enforcement uses. Vote 18-0.
Hearings and recordings
Recordings are the General Court’s own, on YouTube. Start times are estimates unless stated otherwise, and the player opens early.
- February 11, 2026 at 11:30Judiciary public hearing
- February 13, 2026 at 10:00Judiciary executive session recording 0:32:01–0:35:45, about 4 min (estimated)
- March 5, 2026House floor debate recording (start time not identified)
Page generated 2026-09-03 from data published by the New Hampshire General Court. Granite Record is an independent project, not affiliated with the General Court. The official record always takes precedence. Corrections: [email protected]