CONCORD, N.H. – On Friday, the New Hampshire House of Representatives’ Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety met to hear testimony on several bills. Here is a recap of what they heard.
The first bill of the day sought to curb potential corruption by local government officials by allowing public servants to be charged with theft in connection if they act illegally while using the authority of their office.
Under New Hampshire law, theft can be a felony or a misdemeanor depending on the circumstances.
Travis Corcoran (R-Weare) is the prime sponsor of the bill and the only one to testify on its behalf.
He told the committee that concerns about a lack of recourse toward local officials who engage in surreptitious and corrupt behavior was one of the primary reasons he ran for office. His primary fear was if a group of local officials met behind closed doors for nefarious purposes in violation in public meeting law, there would be little recourse to address that issue since it would be difficult to provide evidence that would otherwise be available from meetings of government officials.
Corcoran added that even if those public officials were found guilty of wrongdoing, the penalty would ultimately be on the taxpayers who they represent since they would have to pay out damages stemming from the officials’ actions.
Lauren Selig (D-Durham) asked if this was necessary, wondering if this was not already illegal. Corcoran responded that corruption by public officials is illegal, but it is difficult for many individuals to afford the cost of a lawsuit.
Corcoran could not provide examples of when this might have applied if it were a law when asked by David Meuse (D-Portsmouth) and told Committee Chair Terry Roy (R-Deerfield) that the public meeting law was largely toothless in addressing the issue.
David Love (R-Derry) was the prime sponsor on this bill, which would require eight hours of constitutional training for law enforcement officers.
Love said he felt the training was necessary due to circumstances he heard where some law enforcement officers were unaware of how their actions may or may not be constitutionally appropriate.
John Scippa, Director of New Hampshire Police Standards and Training, said he would welcome any assistance regarding officer training, although he felt that any training regarding constitutional matters should be focused on how it relates to policing itself.
He also indicated that discussion is better than lecture for adult students and requiring a specific number of hours was inappropriate when it comes to training.
This bill would require feminine hygiene products for prisoners who menstruate in state and county correctional facilities.
While feminine hygiene products already are provided for women prisoners, prime sponsor Ellen Read (D-Newmarket) noted that at the county level, the products that are provided are often inadequate. In many situations, she noted that menstruation pads offered to prisoners do not fit properly and in some situations, they do not have enough feminine hygiene products.
She noted this can lead to a phenomenon known as “menstruation poverty” where women are forced to use makeshift feminine hygiene products such as paper towels or toilet paper, which can make it difficult to engage in activities.
She also noted that one woman in Carroll County developed an infection due to inadequate menstruation products offered.
Roy and others on the committee were appalled by Read’s testimony, and specified that the prisoners are not entitled to a particular brand of feminine hygiene products, but just proper feminine hygiene products.
Christie Kim of the National Council of Incarcerated Women shared stories of women in New Hampshire prisons who needed to recycle underwear that had other women’s blood and were forced to wear pads too large for them. She added that in some counties, tampons were limited and it can be considered an offense to clean underwear in a sink.
Selig asked Kim if period pants were available. Kim was unsure, but she replied that prisoners must show a need for new underwear to get new underwear.
Daniel Popovici-Muller (R-Windham) advised that the bill be amended to provide an “adequate” amount of products for prisoners to avoid potential lawsuits.
Jess Edwards (R-Auburn) told the committee that from a policy standpoint the bill was a no-brainer, but it also may require additional fiscal information under requirements within the state constitution regarding funding mandates if the bill forces county correction facilities to purchase more products.
Selig asked Edwards if he believe tampons were not medically necessary and Edwards replied that he believes he said the exact opposite of that statement.
Amanda Bouldin (D-Manchester) asked if it would still be an additional unfunded mandate to require that state and county to provide these products if they were already required to provide these products and they had not been doing so. Edwards responded that it would be if additional expenditures were required to meet those previous requirements.
The Committee also heard testimony from Department of Corrections Commissioner Helen Hanks, who noted that prisoners in state facilities generally had longer sentences than those in county facilities. She also supported the law, indicating that providing proper feminine hygiene products is a national standard.
Selig asked if state-level prisoners could have Diva cups, a device that collects menstrual blood and can be washed, but Hanks said it was not allowable as prisoners may attack guards with that collected blood.
Roy advised several members of the committee not to address questions related to county facilities as Hanks only administers state facilities, with John Sytek (R-Salem) asking why someone from county facilities were not present given that the issue did not seem to be coming from the state level.
Matthew Santonastaso (R-Jaffrey) was the prime sponsor and only sponsor on this bill, which would remove dimethyltyptamine, a hallucinogenic drug known as DMT, from the controlled drug act.
He told the committee that DMT was used for religious and spiritual purposes in parts of South America, and such should be allowed under sections of the New Hampshire Constitution regarding freedom of religion.
Derek Januzeswki of the Pachamama Sanctuary in New Hampshire discussed the substance, which is found naturally in a plant called ayahuasca and then mixed with tea.
He told the committee that generally practitioners undergo the experience no more than once per year given its impact, but cautioned that it was an experienced that enhances the senses of those that undertake it rather than dull their senses, like many other chemically-related experiences.
He added that the chemical is known as the “god molecule” for its ability to provide spiritual awakening to those that use it and forms of it are within all people, also adding that it is comparable to serotonin.
In response to a question from Roy, he said that people should not operate vehicles immediately after taking the substance, and he provides nurses and substance counselors to those who take the drug.
In response to a question from Meuse, he said it can be harmful to those taking certain anti-depressants. However, he told the committee that he has seen 5,000 people take the drug and only 100 were dishonest about medications they had been taking and only four had difficult experiences.
Bill Bright, a captain with the New Hampshire State Police, opposed the bill due to the possibility of individuals operating motor vehicles while impaired with the drug.
Jonah Wheeler (D-Peterborough) asked how many people are pulled over while driving each year while high on hallucinogenic substances. Bright did not know immediately but said he could find out.
This bill would restore firearm ownership rights to ex-felons.
Jason Gerhard (R-Franklin) is the prime sponsor and only sponsor of this bill, and said that it would only apply to individuals who have served their sentence. He told the committee that he had served time in prison and thus he was unable to possess firearms and he has been told stories of women formerly incarcerated who could not obtain firearms they felt they needed to defend themselves.
He also felt that he deserved the right to possess firearms to defend himself.
Others convicted of crimes also testified in favor of the bill.
Frank Staples, a man who has been arrested numerous times related to political activities such as a disruption of an executive council meeting in 2021, came to the hearing in possession of a knife, but felt he should also be allowed to purchase a firearm and said he may do so later that day.
He told the committee that he no longer considered himself a felon under New Hampshire state law. Sytek asked Roy if the Attorney General’s office could provide clarity on Staples’ comments, at which point Staples insulted Sytek and Roy warned Staples that any further comments would result in his removal from the hearing.
Ian Freeman, a man from Keene awaiting federal sentencing after being convicted of a bitcoin money laundering scheme, said that the bill did not go far enough and that those who wanted guns would obtain them regardless of any laws.
The bill also obtained support from those not convicted of crimes.
J.R. Hoell (R-Dunbarton) went further saying that the definition of a felony should only be used in violent offenses, but it had grown beyond its original purpose, denying constitutional rights to many unjustly.
“People should not be denied their constitutional rights due to archaic and complicated laws,” he said.
Dr. Joseph Hannon of the Gun Owners of New Hampshire built on Hoell’s testimony, stating that until 1934, those who were considered too violent to be released from prison or own firearms upon their release were not released from prison and not allowing released prisoners to own firearms turned them into second-class citizens.
Merrimack County Assistant County Attorney Steven Endres voiced opposition to the bill given potential legal complications by its passage.
Endres said that only specific groups are not allowed to possess firearms under specific legislative acts, but there are no laws in New Hampshire allowing firearms to be possessed by certain groups. He said if those specific groups were enumerated, it may cause confusion with other laws prohibiting firearm usage in certain circumstances.
He also said that under New Hampshire state law, a “violent” felony explicitly relates to a direct physical injury to a victim, and individuals who engage in felonies that may be construed by many as violent such as kidnapping or arson, would likely be considered “non-violent” if this bill became law unless their actions resulted in subsequent physical harm to the victims.
Roy also noted due to federal firearms laws, even if this bill passed, it would likely be illegal for an ex-felon to purchase or possess a firearm under federal law.
The final bill of the day also addressed weapons, specifically metallic knuckles and two other handheld weapons known as “blackjacks” and “slung shots.”
A slung shot is a rope once used by sailors that was tied around a person’s wrist at one end and tied in a hard knot known as a “monkey fist” or a weight at the other end.
A blackjack is a small weapon that is several inches long with a broad, weighed tip at its end, often made out of leather.
James Spillane (R-Deerfield) said it made no sense to continue the prohibition on the items given that the law was no longer enforced by police except as a secondary offense and various groups such as those with hunting or fishing licenses or police themselves, were exempted from the law.
Spllane added that TSA agents will not confiscate smaller monkey fists or blackjacks off key chains and the state allowed any length of knife to be possessed.
Hoell returned to speak in favor of the bill, stating that the issue at stake is not the items themselves but how they are used. He also said that many items that are antiques rather than weapons could be confused under this law.
Staples also returned to support this bill, saying that a knife with fingerholes would protect his hands if he needed to defend himself. He also felt it was illogical for these items to be illegal when a sword would not be citing, the earlier statement about the legalization of all types of knives.
NOTE: Amanda Bouldin is a contributor to Manchester Ink Link