Requires screening for all law enforcement officers for substance use disorders prior to assuming their duties as certified officers. The bill also allows the Police Standards and Training Council to reimburse local governments for the costs of testing for psychological and substance use disorders. The House amended the bill to instead establish a fund for psychological stability screening for candidates for certification as law enforcement officers, using money from the drug forfeiture fund.
Recent incidents such as the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri have put a spotlight on police brutality in the United States.
There is no legal definition of police brutality. The term generally includes the excessive use of force by police, whether or not that force rises to the level of criminal assault.
Notable events in NH
There are two recent, highly publicized incidents of police brutality in New Hampshire.
Two Seabrook police officers were fired in 2014 after video surfaced of them shoving a suspect head-first into a wall and then pepper-spraying him while he lay on the ground. One of the officers served 21 days in jail after pleading guilty to simple assault.
In 2016 a New Hampshire state trooper was filmed by a news helicopter beating a suspect in Nashua after a high-speed chase. That trooper pled guilty, received a suspended jail sentence, and agreed to never again work in law enforcement.
Accountability for law enforcement
Local police departments in New Hampshire each have their own policy about when to use different levels of force.
Anyone can complain to local officials about the conduct of a law enforcement officer. If that officer’s conduct violates department rules, he or she may be disciplined or fired. If the officer committed a crime, such as assault, he or she may be prosecuted.
Members of the public and local law enforcement can also submit complaints about police brutality to the state attorney general, who will investigate and prosecute officers for violating the law.
According to an analysis by the Union Leader, 28 citizens filed complaints with the state attorney general about police misconduct from 2006 through 2016.
The New Hampshire attorney general must also investigate every officer-involved shooting in the state.
According to an analysis by the Concord Monitor, New Hampshire police shot 32 civilians from 2005 through 2016. The attorney general found all but three shootings were justified.
The U.S. Department of Justice also has the power to prosecute law enforcement officers for misconduct that violates a person’s civil rights. That includes physical assault, sexual misconduct, etc.
Policy changes in NH
Police departments around the United States, including departments in New Hampshire, are starting to use body cameras to record officers’ activity on the job.
Ideally body cameras provide clear evidence if an officer did or did not use excessive force. Body cameras therefore discourage police brutality and false accusations of brutality.
Some people are concerned about the negative impact body cameras have on privacy for officers, victims, and bystanders.
New Hampshire law regulates the use of body cameras, for example requiring officers to turn off cameras during strip searches. State law does not require law enforcement officers to wear body cameras.
The federal government makes some military equipment, such as armored vehicles, available to local police departments.
Opponents believe this equipment, which can even include grenade launchers and bayonets, enables police departments to react to situations with excessive force. As a result, New Hampshire legislators have considered several bills that would limit the ability of police departments to acquire military equipment. No such limits have become law.
Law enforcement argues that military equipment increases the safety of officers. Heavy duty vehicles also allow local officers to help more during natural disasters.
Other policy debates
The American Civil Liberties Union recommends that police departments involve members of the public when investigating police misconduct and setting department policies. Ideally such civilian review boards eliminate any bias in investigations and improve transparency around police misconduct.
Opponents argue civilians are not qualified to evaluate police policies and conduct.
New Hampshire state law does not require police departments to use civilian review boards, although towns and cities may choose to use them.
According to an analysis by the Concord Monitor, about one-third of the civilians shot by New Hampshire officers between 2005 and 2016 had a possible mental illness. Some advocates believe that police would have fewer violent encounters with people suffering from a mental illness if the state supported more mental health services.
PROS & CONS
“Police brutality is an issue in New Hampshire that lawmakers must address.”
- There are no civilian review boards at the local or state level in New Hampshire, meaning law enforcement are policing themselves, leaving too much room for bias and secrecy. Many civilian review boards are unpaid, so this meaningful reform has a minimal cost.
- There is no official database of complaints about police misconduct in the United States or New Hampshire. There is not even an official tracking system for fatal police shootings. In New Hampshire the best data collection has been done by non-government organizations such as the Union Leader and Concord Monitor, instead of being reported by a government office. With no reliable statistics on police brutality, there is no way to know the scope of police misconduct in New Hampshire. It is best to err on the side of caution and implement policies that protect the safety and civil rights of the public.
- By making military equipment available to local police departments, the federal government has given local law enforcement more power than ever before. To balance this power, New Hampshire needs to implement new checks on police use of force.
“Police brutality is not an issue in New Hampshire.”
- The recent, highly publicized incidents of police brutality in New Hampshire resulted in swift criminal convictions. This shows New Hampshire already has an effective response to police brutality.
- According to data gathered by the Washington Post, New Hampshire had the 7th lowest rate of police shootings in the United States in 2016, with just two fatal shootings. This shows New Hampshire police are some of the least violent in the nation.
- There is no need for state government to take away local control and saddle towns with the cost of mandated reforms if municipalities already have the tools to combat police brutality. There is no state law that prevents local police departments from implementing civilian review boards, body cameras, or other reforms aimed at decreasing police brutality.
Requires law enforcement officers to report misconduct by other law enforcement officers in writing to the chief law enforcement officer in his or her department. The chief law enforcement officer would be required to report this to the Police Standards and Training Council. Violating this new law would be a misdemeanor. The bill defines misconduct as "assault, sexual assault, bribery, fraud, theft, tampering with evidence, or tampering with a witness."
Establishes a committee to study the opportunities for citizen involvement in attorney general investigations of officer involved shootings.
Requires members of law enforcement to report law enforcement misconduct to the Police Standards and Training Council.
Makes law enforcement officer disciplinary records public under the right-to-know law, if there has been a final adjudication involving a death or serious injury due to the officer using a firearm, where the officer was found guilty of sexual assault, or where there was a sustained finding of dishonesty by the officer (e.g. perjury, false statements, concealing evidence).
Requires a determination of whether there is exculpatory evidence in a police officer's file. The police officer would have an opportunity to challenge such a determination. This relates to the "Laurie List" of officers whose behavior might cast doubt on a defendant's guilt, now known as the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule. The House amended the bill to also state that the Schedule is a public record subject to the Right-to-Know law.
Removes the legal authority for a law enforcement officer to use deadly force in making an arrest. Deadly force would still be allowed for defense or to prevent escape.
Changes the time municipalities must keep non-criminal internal affairs investigations of police, from "as required by attorney general and union contract and town personnel rules" to "as required by attorney general plus 20 years." The House amended the bill to simply require that municipalities keep those records for a minimum of 20 years after an officer leaves, unless a preexisting collective bargaining agreement says otherwise.
Clarifies that refusing to answer an officer's questions about name and address is not grounds for arrest.
Prohibits law enforcement officers from questioning a minor on school property without a parent or guardian present.
Prohibits a law enforcement agency from engaging in racial profiling, requires the Department of Corrections to collect data on racial and ethnic disparity in criminal sentencing, authorizes the courts to reduce the sentence of a defendant whose sentence was disproportionate because of racial or ethnic bias, and requires the Commissioner of Education to submit a report on racial disparity or segregation in public schools.
Requires the random testing of state police officers for steroid use.
Requires the Department of Justice to create a publicly accessible database to track property seized and forfeited after state and federal criminal convictions. The Senate amended the bill to instead require the attorney general to post an annual report on forfeiture.
Establishes a committee to study whether or not to codify in statute the exculpatory evidence schedule (EES), formerly known as the "Laurie list," and the related law enforcement protocols. The Laurie list is related to law enforcement misconduct. The House rewrote the bill to instead establish a procedure for handling exculpatory evidence in a police officer's personnel file.
Limits the authority of conservation officers to enforce laws, make arrests, and conduct searches.
Establishes a grant program for body cameras worn by police, funded by a fee for "prestige number vanity plates"—license plates with four or fewer digits.
Requires all law enforcement officers to wear body cameras, paid for by the state. This bill also raises a penalty assessment, from 24% to 28% of criminal, motor vehicle, and municipal ordinance fines.
Prohibits the state and municipalities from acquiring military equipment that is not available in an open commercial market.
Requires a determination of whether there is exculpatory evidence in a police officer's file. The police officer would have an opportunity to challenge such a determination. The House and Senate could not agree on a final version of the bill.
Creates an Office of Ombudsman in the Department of State, which would investigate criminal complaints against government officers, employees, and contractors.
Requires a law enforcement officer to wear a body camera if there is a substantiated complaint based on the officer's conduct. This bill increases penalty assessments to pay for body cameras.
Originally written to increase the amount deducted from a person’s fine for each day of a person’s incarceration. The Senate amended the bill to instead regulate body cameras for law enforcement officers.
Requires law enforcement agencies to report to the Department of Safety when they acquire equipment through a military surplus program operated by the federal government.
Prohibits state agencies and political subdivisions of the state from acquiring military-equipped vehicles or equipment.
Regulates when law enforcement officers should wear body cameras and how to treat the recordings.
Requires the Department of Safety to establish a database cataloging certain law enforcement activities, such as swat raids and drone use.
Requires a determination of whether there is exculpatory evidence in a police officer's file. The police officer would have an opportunity to challenge such a determination. This bill also requires the attorney general to develop procedures for a police officer to have his or her name removed from a list of police officers believed to have exculpatory evidence in their personnel files. This list is known as a "Laurie List."
Establishes a committee to study the use of restraints when transporting a person subject to involuntary admission proceedings.
Requires the random testing of certain law enforcement officers for steroid use by the Police Standards and Training Council.
Requires state police to wear body cameras when interacting with the public. The recordings are exempt from the right-to-know law. The House amended the bill to let each law enforcement agency decide whether or not to use body cameras; if body cameras are used, this bill sets out various regulations for the use of body cameras.
As introduced, this bill would establish a procedure for disclosure of exculpatory information in police personnel files (e.g., a finding that the police officer lied) when a police officer is serving as a witness or prosecutor in a criminal case. The bill was amended to instead establish a commission to study the use of police personnel files as they relate to the Laurie List.
Prohibits law enforcement from using drones without a warrant or an imminent threat.
Requires the Police Standards and Training Council to revoke the certification of any police officer involved with false statements or falsifying evidence.
Requires law enforcement agencies to report on the receipt of various equipment and grants from the federal government and on the deployment of tactical teams
Allows citizens to record by audio or video a traffic stop by law enforcement officers.
Establishes a committee to study military vehicles and equipment and make recommendations about state and local purchase of military equipment. Before amendments, this bill would have prohibited law enforcement (except for the state guard) from acquiring military-equipped vehicles or equipment.
Changes references to "law enforcement officer" to "peace officer" in all state laws.
Requires a supervisory law enforcement officer to arrest a law enforcement officer under his or her supervision when the supervisor knows that the law enforcement officer has committed a criminal offense.
Requires state law enforcement officers to wear a camera when interacting with the public. The bill establishes a police accountability and safety fund, which is funded with a surcharge on criminal and civil fines, to pay the costs for cameras and related expenses.
Is police brutality an issue in NH?
CONTACT ELECTED OFFICIALS »
Here in NH, your opinion counts. We make it easy to find and reach out to your elected officials about the issues that matter most to you. Click to search and contact your elected officials!