A New Hampshire state representative was clocked doing 107 mph, and there's not a single frame of footage to confirm or contradict the deputy's claim — because the sheriff's office that pulled her over doesn't use body cameras or dashboard cameras. If a working man got caught at that speed, he'd be in handcuffs; the politician is claiming constitutional immunity.
State Rep. Ellen Read, a Democrat, is fighting charges from two Rockingham County traffic stops, including the 107 mph stop. Her defense isn't that she wasn't speeding — she admits to doing about 85 mph — but that the New Hampshire Constitution shields lawmakers from being detained while traveling to or from legislative duties. Read says she's willing to accept a ticket for the speed she concedes; what she disputes is the deputy's claim that she hit 107.
And there's no tape to settle it.
Rockingham County Sheriff's Office Major Christopher Bashaw confirmed to Fox News Digital that the agency uses neither body-worn cameras nor dashboard cameras, citing a lack of funding. Bashaw said the office would like to equip deputies with the technology.
But here's the rub: New Hampshire lawmakers themselves established a Body-Worn and Dashboard Camera Fund in 2021, providing matching grants to local law enforcement agencies for cameras, maintenance, replacement, and data storage. All local agencies are eligible. It's unclear whether the Rockingham County Sheriff's Office has even applied. State law requires agencies that deploy cameras to adopt recording policies — but it doesn't require them to buy or use cameras in the first place.
So the legislature created a funding mechanism but made actual camera use optional, and now one of their own faces a speeding charge with no objective record of what happened. Read told Fox News Digital she has consistently supported body camera legislation and funding, and offered to work with the sheriff's office to secure money in the next state budget — though she also questioned other law enforcement spending on military-grade equipment.
Read disputed the sheriff's office claim that she recorded part of the stop on her cellphone. "They are incorrect, I wish I had," she said. "The officers conveniently not wearing/using body cams are the reason that I'm investing in a dash cam." She said a witness listening on a cellphone call during the stop later testified in court.
The constitutional provision Read is invoking protects lawmakers from being delayed while traveling to legislative duties — not from prosecution, she clarified. She admitted in court to going about 85 mph.
Contrast this with Los Angeles, where body cam and dashcam footage captured every moment of a wild June police chase that ended in a shootout. When the suspect, Marco Flores, allegedly shot an officer — whose Kevlar vest saved his life — and was then shot by police, the public didn't have to take anyone's word for it. The footage exists. In New Hampshire, we have a deputy's word against a lawmaker's, and nothing else.
The legislature funded a camera program but didn't mandate cameras. The sheriff's office says it can't afford them. A politician caught at triple-digit speed claims constitutional cover. And the tape that could resolve all of it never existed in the first place. Who does that serve?
