Relative to use and preservation of body-worn camera recordings in certain matters.
Summary
SB 289 adds a new section to RSA 105-D governing how body-worn camera (BWC) recordings may be used and preserved in criminal, juvenile delinquency, and administrative proceedings. It allows law enforcement agencies or prosecutors to copy BWC data, images, and video for discovery, and permits parties to use recordings to create exhibits, subject to the rules of evidence and court rulings. The bill also restricts further copying or distribution of BWC recordings without a court order, except for limited use by an expert or professional consultant assisting with the case.
The bill imposes preservation and destruction requirements. BWC recordings may be accessed only for case-related purposes, and copies created for litigation must be destroyed when the case closes. For cases that go to trial or adjudication, the originating law enforcement agency must keep the original recording until the defendant or juvenile has completed all sentence or disposition terms, and the parties may access the original for post-conviction remedies. The bill defines when a case is considered closed and makes knowing violations of the new section a misdemeanor.
Impact
SB 289 would expand and clarify the statutory framework for body-worn camera evidence in New Hampshire by creating explicit rules for discovery, exhibit preparation, access limits, retention, and destruction of copies. It affects RSA 105-D and applies to criminal, juvenile delinquency, and administrative proceedings, while also creating a new misdemeanor penalty for intentional violations. The fiscal note indicates no direct revenue impact but possible indeterminable costs to the judicial and correctional systems, as well as county and local governments, due to the new penalty provision and related enforcement effects.
Sentiment
The available materials show no recorded committee testimony or vote history, so there is no documented public debate in the provided record. Based on the bill text and fiscal note, the proposal appears to be a procedural and evidence-management measure rather than a controversial policy change, with an apparent focus on standardizing handling of body-worn camera evidence and protecting case integrity. The absence of transcripts or votes means sentiment cannot be measured directly from the provided context.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are the bill’s restrictions on copying and distributing body-worn camera footage, the requirement to destroy copies at the close of a case, and the mandate that law enforcement retain originals through completion of sentence or disposition. Defense counsel, prosecutors, law enforcement agencies, and privacy advocates could differ over whether the limits are too strict or too permissive, especially regarding access for post-conviction litigation and expert review. The new misdemeanor penalty for violations may also raise concerns about compliance burdens and enforcement.