House Hearings on HB502/503 Domestic Violence Law Changes

To contact us Click HERE

February 5, 2013 – HB502 and HB503 Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee Hearing
HB502 – An Act relative to protection of persons fromdomestic violence. Sponsors: Representatives Itse, Comerford, Ulery, andWeyler.
Note: No women sponsored this bill.
A summation of both bills from the NH Coalition AgainstDomestic and Sexual Violence:

HB 502 would prohibit a law enforcement officer fromarresting an abuser unless the officer witnesses the abuse or the victim goesto court to file a criminal complaint against the abuser. In addition this billwould change NH’s “presumptive arrest” policy that states that officers shouldarrest an abuser in cases where he/she has probable cause to believe that aperson has committed abuse.
 HB503: Would prohibit a law enforcement officer fromarresting an abuser unless the victim files, or has previously filed, acriminal complaint. In this case, even if the officer has witnessed the abusethey cannot make an arrest. In addition, it takes away law enforcement’sability to arrest for a violation of a stalking or domestic violence protectiveorder until the victim has filed a criminal complaint with the court. Andfinally, it would repeal the current directive to officers to “use all meanswithin reason to prevent further abuse” UNLESS the officer has been notifiedthat the victim has filed a criminal complaint. This includes the directive toremove deadly weapons from the possession of the alleged abuser, to trainsportthe victim and their children to a safe place, and to give them notice of therights and remedies available to them under the law.

Lead sponsor, Rep. Dan Itse testified that he introducedthis bill to comply with the NH Constitution. (We will come back to this) Healso said that 502 and 503 were supposed to be one bill, but legislativeservices “didn’t get it quite right.”
Noted Constitutional scholar Itse tells us that according tothe NH Constitution, in order to make an arrest, there has to be an “oath or anaffirmation.” (Itse liked that particular phrase, and repeated it as often ashe could, during his testimony.)
Directly from my notes: “For a Constitutional scholar, Itseis not an eloquent or even comprehensible speaker.”
HB502 changes the wording  of the law: “When the peace officer has probable cause tobelieve that the persons are committing or have committed abuse against eachother, the officer need not arrest both persons, but should arrest the person the officer believes to be the primaryphysical aggressor. He wants to change should to may. Why? Because he’s talked to many police officers who felt theymade wrong arrests because they HAD to, because of the wording of the law.
He also referenced the Committee for the Redress ofGrievances, and noted that in family disputes an accusation of domesticviolence is often made, but there is no evidence.
Next we heard from co-sponsor Rep. Al Baldasaro:
“I’ve been a big fighter for domestic violence in the sixyears I’ve been up here.”
“They play to the police to get the upper hand in adivorce.”
“We all support and protect domestic violence.”
Al sez people were arrested on hearsay! There should havebeen some criminal document filed, especially “if nobody seen it.”
Elizabeth Woodcock, Assistant NH AG – opposes the bill
(I said we’d be revisiting the issue Itse raised of complying with the constitution:)
Attorney Woodcock testified that in Article 19 of the NHConstitution the warrant requirement is for searching someone’s house, NOTmaking an arrest, which police have always had the authority to do. 
Take that, Noted Constitutional Scholar.
Woodcock went on to say that this bill would change andweaken our strong domestic violence laws and threaten the safety of everyonewho lives in the house.
In questioning by the committee, Woodcock was asked aboutline five of the bill, which reads, “Or if a criminal complaint has beenfiled.” Woodcock answered, “I don’t know what that means.” Committee memberRep. Steve Vallaincourt said, “I don’t know what that means. I’m not a lawyer,but I see you don’t, either.”

A former police officer (who was doing a poor job ofconcealed carry) testified that part of the problem with domestic violencecomplaints is that they are a weapon. He told a long story about a cheatingwife who was fooling around with a cop, who gave her a gun to protect herself,and lots of corrupt other cops, judges, etc. He was falsely accused andarrested for domestic violence and lost custody of his kids. Everyone  involved in this story is a corruptliar and out to get him.
Rep. Richardson from the committee: Can you explain how this bill changes that?
ExCop could not. (Because it does not.)
Rep. Richardson: I can’t see how this bill would change yoursituation, the situation you described.
Again, ExCop had no good answer for this – because it wouldn’tchange anything. Finally he’s angry enough to stop being careful with hispronouns, and tells us that it’s the man who gets the short stick in thesesituations.
Sandra Matheson, Director of the State Office ofVictim/Witness Awareness brought copies for the committee of the 2012 DomesticViolence Report for the state of NH, which looks at fatalities for the lastdecade. Quick Stats:
50% of the homicides in NH are the result of domesticviolence. 92% of the murder/suicides are the result of domesticviolence. Women are victims in these murders 62% of the time, unlessit is a partner homicide. In that case, women are the victims 86% of the time.
Ms. Matheson: “When victims are not assured safety,lethality can be the result.”
Committee Questions:
Rep. Warden: Of those homicides, how many had previous arrests for DV?Matheson: Not that many, but 40% had a history of DVincidents.
MRA (name changed for privacy) “I’ve been arrested for DV acouple of times on false charges. He was convicted of DV, and lost his houseand kids in a divorce. He was arrested again for DV in 2011, on probable cause,but there was no signed affedavit. He had a lot of paper with him, and citedthe group Save Services as a source of REAL statistics.
SAVE is one of the many sites devoted to attempting to provegender parity in the case of DV. Some sites actually “prove” that men are moreoften abused than women. These are sites frequented by Men’s Rights Activists,who blame feminism for their not being able to slap their wives around any more.   
He aired his whole story, a story that was heard by theCommittee for the Redress of Grievances last session.
Finally he got to the bill, and joined the debate over should vs. may. He’s onthe may side. States do not prosecute people for giving false evidence. He losthis kids, his house, and everything because of false accusations.
Retired Police Chief Timothy Russell  continues to teach DV law at the policeacademy. He stated that the issue of determining who the primary physicalaggressor is not that difficult. He went on to give a thorough treatise on howthe law works, what the wording means, and how the wording applies.
Rep. Ginsberg – concerned by all the stories of  arrests made on the basis of falseaccusations.
Chief – this happens very, very infrequently.
Chief: Our domestic violence laws are some of the best inthe country. Our system is not broken, and there is no need to fix it.
Patricia LaFrance: Hillsborough County Attorney
We prosecute people who make false reports.
Sgt. Jill Rockey of the Major Crimes Unit:
40-60% of abusers also batter children.  Contrary to testimony, the incidence offalse reports is very, very small. As for should v. may, police do not makearrests every time as it stands. No need to change.
Chris Casko: NH Dept of Safety:Opposes bill, will compromise victim safety.
On to HB503
Lead sponsor Rep. Itse says it is the flip side of HB 502.After a little more incoherent rambling, the committee chose to ask him noquestions.
Chris Casko: again in opposition.
MRA:  Supports503. “It all comes down to false allegations.” His voice is shaking he’s soupset. He’s heard attorneys and police officers minimize false allegations.They give out restraining orders like candy, mostly for false accusations. Hethen went on at length about  anumber of national cases.
“The incentives to make a false allegation are huge – allthey care about is the money.”
Committee Chair asks him, “Were you ever convicted of DV?”
The answer is yes. But it’s not his fault because he pleadednolo on the advice of his lawyer. All of his friends, family, and the people inhis church know his story, but none of them would come and testify even thoughhe asked them all.
HIS statistics are accredited (the ones from SAVE) but thechief and all those lawywers didn’t bring statistics. (Unless you count the bigreport on a decade of DV in NH….but who is counting?)
“MEN ARE DYING. YOU GOTTA DO SOMETHING.”
Also – none of his testimony addressed the bill.
Elizabeth Woodcock, Assist. AG – in opposition:
Line #5 removes probable cause. This is a very seriouschange in the law.
She went on to give us all a lesson in nolo contendere andpersonal responsibility.
Tammy (name changed to protect the individual) passed thecommittee a picture of her stepson, and wept as she told them all about him,and how her husband has been falsely accused of physical and sexual abuse. He’ssuffered, he has lawyer fees, he can’t get work. The husband was not present.
Tammy’s testimony never addressed the actual bill.
After 2 hours of this, I went out into the hallway for somefresh air. Soon after, the angry ex-cop, his female companion, MRA and hisfemale companion, and Tammy all came out into the hall, where Rep. JeffreyOligny was waiting for them. He hugged Tammy and told them all what a great jobthey’d done. These folks were straight from the disbanded Committee for theRedress of Grievances, brought in to create some emotional chaos. Not one ofthem presented any testimony that was actually relevant to the bill. It as alljust a sideshow – Itse and Co. thumbing their collective noses at their fellowlegislators and all of the professionals who took time to be there to offer upserious testimony against these nuisance bills.