All bills

HB 1587-FN

requiring police body-worn camera footage be subject to the right-to-know law.

Filed 2026 · Referred for interim study · Criminal Justice and Public Safety · Right to Know

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 HouseINTERIM STUDY
Introduced1/7/2026
Floor date2/19/2026
LSR number2897
Local government impactno
Committee codeH26

Bill text (PDF) ↗

Where it stands

House: INTERIM STUDY

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.

In practice this often ends a bill's progress for the term.

Sponsors

Sabourin dit Choinière, Matt(R) Rock 30, Corcoran, Travis(R) Hills 28, Giasson, Henry(R) Hills 29, Granger, Michael(R) Straf 2, Mannion, Tim(R) Hills 1, Mannion, Tom(R) Hills 1, Slottje, Jeremy(R) Hills 13, Spillane, James(R) Rock 2
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.

Refer for Interim Study

February 19, 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 — REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY

Rep. Terry Roy

The committee heard from many different stake holders regarding the issue of body cameras and the one thing they all agreed on, is that they could not agree. It can be argued that the existing law on its face prohibits the sharing of body camera video with the defense during discovery. The courts have not read it that way and defense has had access to the videos. So, while the existing law could have been better written, it is accomplishing its goals. Proposed changes to clarify the existing law all seemed to create new ones. Law enforcement made the justifiable argument that loosening the law to allow greater access to body camera footage, would come with an enormous expense to law enforcement agencies in the form of officer hours required to view every video released and redacting anything from the video that would be exempt from public disclosure. This would include everything from the inside of people’s private homes, to a random person in the background who might be a minor. Without state funding for these requirements, many departments would simply discontinue the use of body cameras before bearing this cost. The issue of public access to camera footage, particularly for individuals involved in civil complaints about, or litigation with a law enforcement officer or agency will need to be addressed, but it must be done carefully with the input of everyone involved. It will also require more time than the committee has available this session. The committee will discuss the matter with stake holders and formulate language for a commission to study the matter and recommend legislation if it is determined to be necessary. Vote 12-0.

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]