Democratic Lawmaker’s High-Speed Incident Rekindles Heated Bodycam Debate

A high-speed incident involving a Democratic lawmaker from New Hampshire has reignited the conversation surrounding police body and dashboard cameras. Reports confirm that the sheriff’s office involved lacked both these critical pieces of technology during the stop.

State Representative Ellen Read is at the center of a legal storm after being charged following two traffic stops in Rockingham County, one of which saw her allegedly traveling at 107 mph. Read contends that these stops infringe upon a New Hampshire constitutional clause that shields lawmakers commuting to legislative sessions.

The absence of body and dashboard camera recordings in these incidents has left the court without definitive evidence, underscoring a crucial gap in documentation that could influence the ongoing debate about legislative immunity.

Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office Major Christopher Bashaw remarked that the department’s current technological shortcomings stem from insufficient budget allocations, limiting their ability to acquire body-worn and dashboard cameras.

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

New Hampshire lawmakers established a Body-Worn and Dashboard Camera Fund in 2021 to provide matching grants to local law enforcement agencies for purchasing cameras and covering maintenance, replacement and data storage costs. All local law enforcement agencies are eligible to apply.

State law also requires agencies that choose to deploy body cameras to adopt policies governing when officers must record law enforcement encounters, including traffic stops. The law, however, does not require agencies to purchase or use body cameras.

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

Read told News Media she has consistently supported legislation governing body-worn cameras, as well as funding to help law enforcement agencies purchase them. She also said she would be willing to work with the Rockingham County Sheriff’s Office to help secure funding for body cameras in the next state budget.

Read said she supports funding body cameras even though she questions other forms of law enforcement spending, including military-grade equipment and expensive vehicles.

She also disputed the sheriff’s office’s assertion that she recorded part of the traffic stop on her cellphone.

“They are incorrect, I wish I had,” Read said. “The officers conveniently not wearing/using body cams are the reason that I’m investing in a dash cam.”

According to Read, the sheriff’s office misunderstood what happened during the stop. She said she did not record the encounter and that a witness listening during a cellphone call later testified in court.

Read has argued the constitutional provision protects lawmakers from being delayed while traveling to legislative duties—not from prosecution.

“I admitted to the officer and in court that I was going about 85 miles an hour on the highway,” she said, adding that she was willing to accept a speeding ticket but disputed the deputy’s allegation that she was traveling 107 mph and driving recklessly.

Lawrence Friedman, a professor at New England Law, said the constitutional provision dates back centuries and was intended to prevent lawmakers from being delayed while performing their legislative duties – not to provide blanket immunity from traffic stops or criminal prosecution.

“I think it’s probably not the case that this provision provides some kind of absolute immunity,” Friedman told News Media. “It’s unlikely that a court would say, ‘No, you’re absolutely immune from arrest for a moving violation that everyone else would be subject to arrest for just because you happen to be a legislator.'”

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

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

Bashaw said the constitutional provision was intended to prevent law enforcement from interfering with legislative business, not to shield lawmakers from accountability for dangerous driving.

“The claim that you’re immune from all types of arrests … that’d be like saying you could drive at those speeds, commit a vehicular homicide, and that you are not allowed to be held accountable because you’re traveling to and from session,” Bashaw said.

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

“I did not write this constitutional provision … it was written before cars existed,” she said.