requiring police body-worn camera footage be subject to the right-to-know law.
Summary
HB 1587 would make police body-worn camera footage subject to New Hampshire’s right-to-know law, treating such recordings as governmental proceedings and public records unless otherwise exempt under existing law. The bill creates a specific disclosure section requiring law enforcement agencies and other public bodies to process requests for body-camera footage, respond within five business days, and either provide the records, deny the request with an explanation, or state how long redaction and processing will take.
The bill also sets out mandatory redactions before release. Agencies would have to remove personal identifying information, medical or welfare data, imagery of minors and sexual assault victims, and footage from private locations where privacy interests outweigh the public interest. Any other material exempt under RSA 91-A or federal law would also remain protected, and agencies must document redactions in writing with the statutory basis for each withholding. The bill repeals the current exemption for body-worn camera footage and takes effect January 1, 2027.
Impact
HB 1587 would significantly expand public access under RSA chapter 91-A by removing the existing statutory exemption for police body-worn camera footage and expressly including such recordings within the definition of governmental proceedings. It would impose new procedural duties on state and local agencies, including a five-business-day response deadline, written explanations for denials or delays, and itemized documentation of redactions. The bill also authorizes agencies to charge actual costs for redaction and processing, which could offset some compliance expenses but does not provide appropriations or new positions.
Sentiment
The bill appears generally pro-transparency and likely appeals to supporters of open government and public oversight of law enforcement. The fiscal note, however, indicates substantial implementation costs for the Department of Safety, the Department of Corrections, and municipalities, suggesting that agencies view the measure as operationally burdensome. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so the available context shows the bill’s policy direction more clearly than any formal legislative consensus or opposition.
Contention
The main point of contention is the balance between public access and privacy/law-enforcement administration. Supporters are likely to emphasize accountability and timely disclosure of police recordings, while opponents or cautious agencies may focus on the cost and workload of reviewing, redacting, and responding to requests within five business days. Privacy concerns are also central, especially regarding minors, sexual assault victims, medical information, and footage from private locations. Local governments and law enforcement agencies may object to the unfunded mandate aspect, since the fiscal note anticipates staffing, software, and legal costs without corresponding appropriations.
Requiring a public body's collective bargaining negotiations to be deemed public meetings and requiring that arguments made and information generated during the meetings be made available to the public under the right-to-know law.
Removing fees and charges for governmental records under the right-to-know law and reinstating potential liability for disclosure of information exempt from disclosure.