HB1690 (2012) Detail

Prohibiting the use of cell phone data extraction devices by law enforcement agencies.






AN ACT prohibiting the use of cell phone data extraction devices by law enforcement agencies.

SPONSORS: Rep. Kurk, Hills 7

COMMITTEE: Criminal Justice and Public Safety


This bill limits the use of data extraction devices.

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

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Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.




In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twelve

AN ACT prohibiting the use of cell phone data extraction devices by law enforcement agencies.

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

1 New Paragraph; Violation of Privacy. Amend RSA 644:9 by inserting after paragraph I the following new paragraph:

I-a. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such person, without the consent of the person entitled to privacy therein or without first obtaining a search warrant, uses any device for the purpose of scanning, extracting, or otherwise obtaining data or images of any kind from another person’s cell phone or global positioning satellite device. The exemptions set forth in paragraph V shall not apply to this paragraph.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2013.





AN ACT prohibiting the use of cell phone data extraction devices by law enforcement agencies.


      The Judicial Branch and New Hampshire Association of Counties state this bill may increase state and county expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2013 and each year thereafter. The Judicial Council and Department of Safety state this bill may have an indeterminable impact on state expenditures in FY 2013 and each year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on state, county, or local revenue or local expenditures.


    The Judicial Branch states this bill makes it a class A misdemeanor for those persons, including law enforcement officers, who use a device to extract data from another person’s cell phone or global positioning satellite device without that person’s consent or a search warrant. The Branch has no information to estimate how many class A misdemeanors would be brought as a result of the changes contained in the bill to determine the fiscal impact on expenditures but does have information on the cost for processing such a misdemeanor. All costs are estimated based on case weight information from the last needs assessment completed in 2005. The Branch states a class A misdemeanor will cost $59.11 per case in FY 2013 and $61.31 per case in FY 2014 and each year thereafter. The possibility of appeals increases the likelihood the fiscal impact on the Branch will exceed $10,000.

    The Judicial Council states this bill may result in an indeterminable increase in general fund expenditures, to the extent there is an increase in class A misdemeanors. The Council states if an individual is found to be indigent, the flat fee of $275 per misdemeanor is charged by a public defender or contract attorney. If an assigned counsel attorney is used the fee is $60 per hour with a cap of $1,400 for a misdemeanor charge. The Council also states additional costs could be incurred if an appeal is filed. The public defender, contract attorney and assigned counsel rates for Supreme Court appeals is $2,000 per case, with many assigned counsel attorneys seeking permission to exceed the fee cap. Requests to exceed the fee cap are seldom granted. Finally, expenditures would increase if services other than counsel are requested and approved by the court during the defense of a case or during an appeal. The Council also stated this bill may impact the ability of law enforcement to conduct investigations, such that fewer charges for a wide variety of criminal conduct would be filed. However, the Council could not estimate what effect this would have on expenditures, and the other agencies contacted on this issue did not believe that this particular issue would have any impact.

    The Department of Justice states the criminal offense in this bill is typically prosecuted by the county attorney, and that any action required of the Department during any related appeals that may arise would most likely be undertaken within its existing budget.

    The Department of Safety states it cannot estimate the amount of any increase in state expenditures due to investigations that arise as a result of this bill.

    The New Hampshire Association of Counties states to the extent more individuals are charged, convicted, and sentenced to incarceration in a county correctional facility, the counties may have increased expenditures. The Association is unable to determine the number of individuals who might be charged, convicted or incarcerated as a result of this bill to determine an exact fiscal impact. The average annual cost to incarcerate an individual in a county correctional facility is approximately $35,000. There is no impact on county revenue.

    The New Hampshire Municipal Association states it cannot identify any fiscal impact this bill would have on local revenue or expenditures.


HB1690 at GenCourtMobile

Action Dates

Date Body Type

Bill Text Revisions

HB1690 Revision: 21941 Date: Jan. 6, 2012, midnight