All bills

HB 1289-FN

criminalizing the use of small unmanned aircraft systems for the purpose of video voyeurism and the invasion of the right to privacy.

Filed 2026 · Killed · Criminal Justice and Public Safety · Crimes, Crim.Proc. & Corr.

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.

StatusHOUSE
In the HouseINEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Introduced1/7/2026
Floor date2/5/2026
LSR number2814
Local government impactno
Committee codeH26

Bill text (PDF) ↗

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

Wood, Clayton(R) Merr 13, Bernardy, JD(R) Rock 36, Birdsell, Regina(R) Rock 19, Post, Lisa(R) Hills 42, Roy, Terry(R) Rock 31, Tenczar, Jeffrey(R) Hills 1
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.

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

February 5, 2026 · House · None–None, adopted

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

Rep. Terry Roy

The committee opposes this bill because it attempts to create a dronespecific crime for “video voyeurism” and invasion of privacy even though New Hampshire already criminalizes this conduct regardless of the technology used. Existing statutes, including our “peeping tom” and privacy provisions and trespass principles, already prohibit surreptitious observation and recording of persons in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether the offender uses a handheld camera, a cell phone, or a drone. Singling out drones adds redundancy and invites confusion for law enforcement and prosecutors about which overlapping statute to charge, without providing any additional protection for victims. Furthermore, the bill inappropriately ties criminal liability to the operation of a “small unmanned aircraft system” in a policy area where Congress has granted the FAA exclusive authority over airspace and aircraft operations. Federal guidance makes clear that states may address traditional policepower concerns such as privacy and trespass through generally applicable laws, but they may not regulate aviation safety, airspace use, or create a patchwork of dronespecific operational rules. By embedding dronespecific language in the criminal code, this bill blurs that line and risks future pressure to add operational restrictions that could conflict with federal law. Because current New Hampshire statutes already prohibit the underlying voyeuristic and invasive conduct, and because this bill unnecessarily complicates our criminal code while encroaching on an area of federal responsibility, the majority finds that this bill is redundant, potentially confusing, and unwise policy. Vote 11-0.

Hearings and recordings

Recordings are the General Court’s own, on YouTube. Start times are estimates unless stated otherwise, and the player opens early.

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]