HB149 (2005) Detail

Prohibiting the use or installation of radar scrambler devices in motor vehicles.


HB 149-FN – AS INTRODUCED

2005 SESSION

05-0060

03/09

HOUSE BILL 149-FN

AN ACT prohibiting the use or installation of radar scrambler devices in motor vehicles.

SPONSORS: Rep. P. Smith, Rock 3; Rep. Dumaine, Rock 3; Rep. Waterhouse, Rock 4; Rep. Bettencourt, Rock 4

COMMITTEE: Transportation

ANALYSIS

This bill prohibits the use or installation of radar interference devices in motor vehicles.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

05-0060

03/09

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Five

AN ACT prohibiting the use or installation of radar scrambler devices in motor vehicles.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Section; Motor Vehicles; Equipment Prohibited; Radar Interference Devices. Amend RSA 266 by inserting after section 75 the following new section:

266:75-a Radar Interference Devices. No person shall use or install in any motor vehicle any device designed or intended to jam, disrupt, or interfere with a speed-measuring device operated by a police officer. A person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor if convicted under this section. This section shall not be construed to apply to any device that is usable solely as a radar detector.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2006.

LBAO

05-0060

12/28/04

HB 149-FN - FISCAL NOTE

AN ACT prohibiting the use or installation of radar scrambler devices in motor vehicles.

FISCAL IMPACT:

      The Judicial Branch, Judicial Council, and the Association of Counties state this bill will increase state and county expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2006 and each year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on state, county, and local revenue or local expenditures.

METHODOLOGY:

    The Judicial Branch states this bill will add RSA 266:75-a, which would prohibit radar interference devices in motor vehicles. Violation of the proposed section is an unspecified misdemeanor. Class B misdemeanors carry the potential of incarceration, and therefore, the potential for de novo appeals to the Superior Court for a jury trial. Both class A and class B misdemeanors can also involve appeals to the Supreme Court. The Branch is unable to predict the number of prosecutions that will be brought pursuant to the proposed statute, and state that any fiscal impact will result in increased delays in the processing of other cases.

    The Judicial Council assumes that any cases arising from the enactment of this bill, for which the Indigent Defense Fund may be liable, will in the first instance, be handled by the public defender or a contract attorney who accept these cases on a fixed fee basis of $250 per misdemeanor charged. If an assigned counsel attorney must be used, the hourly rate of $60 with a fee cap of $1,000 will apply. If a motion to exceed the fee cap is approved and/or “services other than counsel” are approved, these will also be chargeable to the Indigent Defense Fund. Any charge within the criminal justice system, committed by a juvenile, will be compensated within the flat fee contract system of $250 per case through disposition, plus $187.50 for each and every review hearing following disposition. Assigned counsel will be at the $60 per hour rate with a fee cap of $1,200. The fee cap may be waived upon motion filed with the court and approved in advance. Any case where a defendant has been found guilty may also result in appeals to either the Superior Court or to the Supreme Court which would have a cost implication for Indigent Defense expenditures made by the State. The Council is unable to predict the number of cases which may result from the passage of this bill, and are unable to determine the exact fiscal impact at this time.

    The Association of Counties states to the extent individuals are prosecuted, the county may incur the cost of pre-trial detainment at the county department of corrections, as well as the cost of sentenced inmates under the new law. The average annual cost for counties to incarcerate inmates is $21,633.55. The Association states the total exposure to the counties would be dependent on the number of individuals convicted and sentenced under the new law, which cannot be determined at this time.

    The Department of Justice states this bill will have no fiscal impact on the Department.

Links

HB149 at GenCourtMobile

Action Dates

Date Body Type

Bill Text Revisions

HB149 Revision: 8641 Date: Jan. 21, 2010, midnight

Docket