New Hampshire House Bill HB1070

New Hampshire 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 11/12/25
• Refer: 11/12/25
• Report DNP: 3/4/26

Caption

relative to the involuntary emergency admission process.

Summary

HB 1070 would change New Hampshire’s involuntary emergency admission process by requiring that, when a person is taken for a compulsory mental health evaluation under RSA 135-C:28, the person generally be transported by ambulance and placed under the care of an emergency medical technician. The bill also clarifies that the person’s consent to ambulance transport is not required. If law enforcement determines the person poses a safety risk to emergency medical personnel, the bill allows transport by law enforcement instead. The bill also amends the protective custody process for individuals whom a peace officer reasonably suspects may be suffering from mental illness and who are believed to pose an immediate danger of bodily injury to themselves or others. In those cases, the person must be taken directly to an emergency room of a licensed general hospital or another designated site for evaluation to determine whether an involuntary emergency admission should be ordered. Protective custody ends when a physician, physician assistant, or APRN makes that determination, or after 6 hours, whichever comes first.

Impact

HB 1070 would amend RSA 135-C:28, the state statute governing involuntary emergency admissions, by adding a transportation requirement for certain mental health evaluations and by specifying the conditions under which protective custody may be used. It would create a default rule that ambulance transport and EMT care are required for compulsory mental health evaluations, while preserving a law-enforcement transport option when safety concerns exist. The bill could affect police departments, ambulance providers, hospitals, community mental health programs, and individuals subject to emergency mental health interventions. The fiscal note indicates no county or state revenue impact, no county expenditure impact, and indeterminable local expenditures depending on how ambulance costs are allocated.

Sentiment

The available context suggests the bill is framed as a public-safety and patient-care measure rather than a controversial policy overhaul. Its placement in the Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs Committee and the absence of recorded votes or committee transcript excerpts indicate limited documented debate in the provided materials. The fiscal note also suggests the main practical issue is implementation and cost allocation, not broad opposition to the underlying mental health intervention process.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to be who pays for the required ambulance transport when law enforcement requests it and whether municipalities, individuals, or another payer would bear the cost. The fiscal note specifically flags uncertainty about cost responsibility and notes that municipal ambulance costs can be significant, making local expenditures indeterminable. A secondary issue is operational safety: the bill requires ambulance transport in most cases, but allows law enforcement transport if police deem the person a safety risk to emergency medical personnel, which reflects concern about balancing medical access with responder safety.