Revision: Dec. 15, 2009, midnight
HB 1619-FN – AS INTRODUCED
2010 SESSION
04/01
HOUSE BILL 1619-FN
AN ACT requiring law enforcement officers to record interviews of suspects in felony cases.
SPONSORS: Rep. Robertson, Ches 3
COMMITTEE: Criminal Justice and Public Safety
This bill requires that law enforcement officers make an electronic recording of the statement of an arrested person during custodial interrogation.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
10-2375
04/01
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Ten
AN ACT requiring law enforcement officers to record interviews of suspects in felony cases.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 New Section; Arrests in Criminal Cases; Electronic Recording of Statements. Amend RSA 594 by inserting after section 15 the following new section:
594:15-a Mandatory Electronic Recording of Statements By Those Subject to Custodial Interrogation.
I. No statement made by an arrested person during custodial interrogation shall be admissible in evidence against the arrested person in a criminal proceeding unless:
(a) A complete and authentic electronic recording, which may include motion picture, video tape, or other visual recording, or an audio tape recording, is made of the statement and the interrogation in its entirety;
(b) Prior to the statement but during the recording the person is informed of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel as set forth in warnings commonly known as Miranda warnings, and the accused knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waives all rights set out in the warning;
(c) The recording device was capable of making an accurate recording, the operator was competent, and the recording is accurate and has not been altered;
(d) All voices on the recording that are material to the custodial interrogation are identified; and
(e) Not later than the 30th day after arraignment or on such other date as set by the court, the defendant or the defendant’s attorney is provided with a true, complete, and accurate copy of all recordings of the defendant made under this section.
II. For the purpose of this section, the phrase, “statement made by an arrested person as a result of custodial interrogation” shall be broadly construed.
III. Nothing in this section precludes the admission of a statement made by the defendant in open court at his or her trial or other hearing in open court, or of a statement that is the res gestae of the arrest or of the offense, or of a statement that does not stem from custodial interrogation.
IV. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph I, a written, oral, or sign language statement of an arrested person made as a result of a custodial interrogation is admissible against the accused in a criminal proceeding in this state if:
(a) The statement was obtained in another state and was obtained in compliance with the laws of that state or this state;
(b) The statement was obtained by a federal law enforcement officer in this state or another state and was obtained in compliance with the laws of the United States; or
(c) The custodial interrogation took place somewhere other than a police station or office of a law enforcement agency and the requisite recording equipment was not reasonably available at that location.
V. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the arrested person from making a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his or her right to have the custodial interrogation electronically recorded.
VI. In the event that an unrecorded custodial statement of an arrested person is offered as evidence against that person at trial, the state shall be required to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the arrested person made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to have the custodial interrogation recorded or that the unrecorded custodial statement falls within an exception set forth in paragraph IV and was not the result of an effort to avoid the requirements of this section.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
LBAO
10-2375
12/11/09
HB 1619-FN - FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT requiring law enforcement officers to record interviews of suspects in felony cases.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Department of Safety, Fish and Game Department, New Hampshire Association of Counties, and New Hampshire Municipal Association state this bill would increase state, county, and local expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2010 and each year thereafter. This bill would have no fiscal impact on state, county and local revenue.
METHODOLOGY:
The Department of Safety states this bill would require law enforcement officers to record interviews of suspects in felony cases. The fiscal impact on the Department would be the costs to equip all state troopers within the Division of State Police with recording equipment and mini compact discs on which to make recordings. Currently, only personnel assigned to detective duties are equipped with recording equipment. Additionally, recording equipment is also available at each troop station. Best practices would call for recording devices being made a standard equipment issue to all troopers, not just detectives since there is know what to know at what hour or location a state trooper may be thrust into a felony investigation. Quality recording and cost and production efficiency for making copies for defendants would require the recording technology to be digitally based. The Department estimates it would be required to purchase 323 recorders (to equip each state trooper) at a cost of $95 per recorder, for a total one-time cost of $30,685. In addition, the Department estimates it would need to expend approximately $698 annually for recording medium (323 troopers X 6 discs and sleeves per trooper X $0.36 per unit), and $659 for AAA batteries (323 troopers X 12 batteries per trooper X $0.17 per battery). The Department states there would most likely be additional unknown costs, such as replacement of malfunctioning equipment and costs of replacing supplies to operate the equipment and make the recordings. The Department is unable to determine the exact fiscal impact at this time.
The Fish and Game Department states there may be an increase in costs to provided not only recording equipment for each conservation officer, but would require hiring additional staff or contracting with professional services to provide transcripts. Potentially, any offense under Title 18 could result in a custodial interrogation. The Department is unable to determine the
LBAO
10-2375
12/11/09
exact fiscal impact at this time, but state it does not expect any increase in costs to be significant.
The New Hampshire Association of Counties states this bill would increase county expenditures by an indeterminable amount, as the required recording may cost sheriff’s departments up to $85 per interrogation. The exact fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time.
The New Hampshire Municipal Association states local law enforcement agencies that do not possess any electronic recording devices would be required to purchase said devices. The bill also requires local law enforcement agencies to employ persons competent to operate such equipment, and would require that the defendant or his attorney must be provided with “true, complete and accurate” copies of any and all recording made of the suspect not later than 30 days arraignment. This bill would increase expenditures of local law enforcement agencies, but the exact fiscal impact cannot be determined at this time.
The Department of Justice states it could absorb any fiscal impact within its current budget.
The Department of Resources and Economic Development states this bill would have no fiscal impact on their Department.