Paul Pelosi faces misdemeanor hit-and-run charge in Napa County
Paul Pelosi, the spouse of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is now facing a misdemeanor charge of hit-and-run in Napa County. This comes after an incident where his convertible collided with a parked vehicle. According to information from the Napa County Sheriff’s Office, Pelosi acknowledged striking an object but continued driving until his vehicle became inoperable. Although deputies excluded the possibility of DUI in this case, the California DMV is set to reassess Pelosi’s driving privileges in light of the recent crash. It’s noteworthy that Pelosi had a prior DUI arrest back in 2022.
In another legal twist, a Democratic legislator from New Hampshire is challenging speeding charges. Alleged to have driven in excess of 100 mph in one instance and at 92 mph in another, she claims a historical clause in the state constitution shields her from being stopped when commuting to or from legislative sessions. Court documents accessed by News Media detail her argument.
State Representative Ellen Read asserts that her detainment by the police was unlawful. She believes the New Hampshire Constitution offers lawmakers protection against being “arrested, or held to bail” when participating in or traveling to and from the General Court. Her defense argues that the charges are the result of an unconstitutional traffic stop and should be dismissed.
Her first alleged violation took place in December 2024, when authorities accused her of driving at speeds exceeding 100 mph on Interstate 93 in Windham. The second incident was reported in June 2025, with claims of her driving 92 mph in a 65 mph zone in Londonderry.
New Hampshire State Representative Ellen Read, depicted here at a political demonstration in 2015, is attempting to have two speeding allegations dismissed. She maintains that the state Constitution provides protective clauses that guard her from arrest while on legislative business. (Getty Images)
In both cases, Read argued she was driving a vehicle displaying a New Hampshire state representative license plate and told officers she was returning from a legislative session.
“At the time of the stop, Ms. Read was a sitting member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives,” her petition states. “She was traveling in a vehicle bearing a New Hampshire State Representative license plate. Upon being stopped, Ms. Read informed the deputy that she was returning from the General Court.”
In response to questions from News Media, Read said she is not arguing the Constitution shields lawmakers from prosecution, but instead protects them from being stopped while traveling to or from legislative duties.
“The plain reading of the Constitution says that legislators cannot be stopped on their way to or from their duties,” Read said. “It says nothing of being ticketed or arrested at the end of the commute, and nothing about prosecution.”
“Under the plain language of the New Hampshire Constitution, defendant was unlawfully detained/seized/arrested in violation of her Legislative privilege,” one motion states. “All evidence illegally obtained should be suppressed, and the charge dismissed.”
At the center of Read’s defense is a 1784 provision of the New Hampshire Constitution that states, “No member of the House of Representatives, or Senate shall be arrested, or held to bail, on mesne process, during his going to, returning from, or attendance upon, the Court.”
Read said the provision was intended to prevent local officials from delaying lawmakers and interfering with legislative votes, not to exempt legislators from criminal liability.
State Capitol of New Hampshire, Concord. (Joe Sohm/Visions of America/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
“It was always the commute itself that was meant to be protected… Not the legislator protected from breaking the law,” she said.
Read’s petition argues the New Hampshire Supreme Court has never interpreted the scope of the provision in the roughly 240 years since it was ratified, calling it a constitutional question of first impression that the state’s highest court has never squarely addressed.
“The question is not whether a sitting legislator is ‘above the law,'” the petition states.
Instead, Read argues, lawmakers traveling to and from legislative duties should receive the same “functional analysis” applied to police officers or emergency medical technicians who violate traffic laws while performing official duties.
A judge rejected that argument in Read’s first speeding case.
Court records show she was found guilty of negligent driving in August 2025 and fined $1,240, with half the fine deferred.
She was also allowed to keep her license as long as she maintained good behavior for two years, completed a safe-driving course and avoided additional moving violations.
Read later asked the New Hampshire Supreme Court to take up the constitutional question before the second speeding case proceeded. The court declined, denying her petition without prejudice and allowing her to raise the arguments again in a future appeal that complies with court rules.
Read defended her handling of the case in an Instagram statement, saying she accepted the reduced negligent driving charge “to end the case” and did not appeal the constitutional issue.
In the same statement, Read’s office disputed allegations that she exceeded 100 mph, arguing the 2009 Toyota Yaris she was driving, which she said has more than 440,000 miles on it, “simply cannot go that fast.”
Her office also said the officer did not use radar or clock her speed and instead estimated it while accelerating to catch up to her vehicle. Read’s office further claimed a State House employee who was on the phone with her during the traffic stop later testified to an account that conflicted with the officer’s version of events.
Read’s office also criticized the lack of body-camera footage from the stop and said she now encourages motorists to use dashboard cameras.
Read said her challenge focuses on the legality of the traffic stops rather than the underlying charges.
“The unconstitutional manner of the stops, and not the charge, therefore, was the topic of discussion in the case,” she said.