HB 127-FN – AS INTRODUCED
2011 SESSION
04/03
HOUSE BILL 127-FN
AN ACT relative to the definition of oral communication.
SPONSORS: Rep. Baldasaro, Rock 3; Rep. Jennifer Coffey, Merr 6; Rep. Itse, Rock 9; Rep. Hikel, Hills 7; Rep. L. Christiansen, Hills 27
COMMITTEE: Criminal Justice and Public Safety
This bill amends the definition of “oral communication” under the wiretapping and eavesdropping statute by further defining the circumstances under which an oral communication may be legally intercepted.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
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Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
11-0098
04/03
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eleven
AN ACT relative to the definition of oral communication.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Wiretapping and Eavesdropping; Definitions. Amend RSA 570-A:1, II to read as follows:
II. “Oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, provided that circumstances justifying such expectation shall not include any instance in which a person has been informed, either orally, through the open, visible use of an electronic, mechanical, or other device, or by a sign posted at each entrance to an area that interception shall be taking place.
2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
LBAO
11-0098
12/28/10
HB 127-FN - FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT relative to the definition of oral communication.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Judicial Branch, the Judicial Council, the Department of Corrections, and the New Hampshire Association of Counties state this bill may decrease state and county expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2012 and each year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on state and county revenue or local revenue or expenditures.
METHODOLOGY:
The Judicial Branch states this bill will amend the definition of “oral communication” in RSA 570-A:1 to further define the circumstances under which an oral communication may be legally intercepted. The Branch states currently illegal interceptions are prosecuted as class B felonies or unspecified misdemeanors. A review of Judicial Branch statistics covering fiscal years 2005 through 2010 reveals only 38 charges of violations of RSA chapter 570-A have been brought in District Court (average of six per year) and only 26 have been brought to Superior Court (average of four per year). The Branch states costs to process misdemeanors in the District Courts cost between $43 and $60 per charge and the cost to process routine felonies in Superior Courts are approximately $400 per charge. The Branch cannot predict the reduction in cases from this proposed legislation. The Branch further states this bill may result in an indeterminable decrease in general fund expenditures.
The Judicial Council states to the extent an unspecified misdemeanor results in a misdemeanor offense where the right to counsel exists this bill may result in an indeterminable decrease in general fund expenditures. 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 costs may decrease if fewer appeals are filed as a result of this bill. 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.
The Department of Corrections states it is not able to determine the fiscal impact of this bill because it does not have sufficient detail to predict the number of individuals who would be subject to this legislation. The Department of Corrections states the average annual cost of incarcerating an individual in the general prison population for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 was $32,492. The cost to supervise an individual by the Department’s division of field services for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010 was $659.
The New Hampshire Association of Counties states to the extent any lesser number of individuals are prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to incarceration, the counties may have decreased expenditures. The Association is unable to determine the reduction in number of individuals who might be detained, prosecuted or incarcerated as a result of this bill. The Association cannot determine the number of individuals who might have been prosecuted under the former definition who would have been excluded under the proposed new definition. The average annual cost to incarcerate an individual in a county correctional facility is approximately $35,000.
The Department of Justice states this bill would not have any fiscal impact on the Department as such offenses are typically prosecuted by a local prosecutor or county attorney’s office.