HB 1552-FN
relative to orders of protection.
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 | 2807 |
| Local government impact | no |
| Committee code | H26 |
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
Love, David(R) Rock 13
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 Criminal Justice and Public Safety
- January 16, 2026Public Hearing: 01/16/2026 11:30 am GP 159
- February 18, 2026Executive Session: 02/18/2026 11:30 am GP 159
- February 24, 2026Committee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate 02/18/2026 (Vote 11-1; 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
This bill introduces an unnecessary and potentially intimidating barrier to individuals seeking emergency protection from domestic violence. While the committee fully supports the principle that all court filings must be truthful, the requirement to sign a specific, highlighted perjury warning at the time of a crisis serves as a psychological deterrent to genuine victims. These individuals are often in a state of high stress or immediate danger; forcing them to navigate explicit criminal warnings just to gain access to the court’s protection is a “red tape” measure that could lead a victim to hesitate, with potentially fatal consequences. Furthermore, this bill is legally redundant. Under existing New Hampshire law, all petitions for protective orders under RSA 173-B and RSA 169-C are already signed under oath. Making a false statement in a court filing is already a prosecutable act of perjury or false swearing. Adding a mandatory, redundant warning does not change the legal standard for truthfulness, but it does change the atmosphere of the court clerk’s office from one of assistance to one of suspicion. The committee believes that our priority must be to maintain clear, accessible pathways for victims of abuse and that current statutes already provide the necessary tools for prosecutors to address the rare instances of fraudulent filings without discouraging those in legitimate fear for their lives. Vote 11-1.
Hearings and recordings
Recordings are the General Court’s own, on YouTube. Start times are estimates unless stated otherwise, and the player opens early.
- January 16, 2026 at 11:30Criminal Justice and Public Safety public hearing recording 4:01:02–4:07:18, about 6 min (estimated)
- February 18, 2026 at 11:30Criminal Justice and Public Safety executive session recording 1:44:37–1:47:37, about 3 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]