New Hampshire State Representative Ellen Read, a Democrat representing Newmarket, faces legal challenges over two separate speeding incidents, arguing that a 1784 provision of the state constitution protects her from police stops while engaged in legislative travel. Her legal defense centers on the claim that deputies unlawfully detained her, violating her constitutional privileges as a lawmaker.
"the plain reading of the Constitution says that legislators cannot be stopped on their way to or from their duties," while adding that the provision "says nothing of being ticketed or arrested at the end of the commute, and nothing about prosecution." — State Representative Ellen Read, Democrat, Newmarket
The first incident occurred on December 2, 2024, when authorities alleged that Representative Read was driving 107 mph in a 65 mph zone on Interstate 93 in Windham. Several months later, in June 2025, she was stopped again in Londonderry, where deputies accused her of driving 92 mph in a 65 mph zone. In both encounters, according to court filings, Read informed the deputies that she was returning from legislative duties and was operating a vehicle displaying a New Hampshire state representative license plate.
At the core of Read’s legal argument is Part II, Article 21 of the New Hampshire Constitution. This historical provision states that no member of the House or Senate “shall be arrested, or held to bail” while traveling to, attending, or returning from the General Court. Read contends that this constitutional language directly prohibited deputies from stopping or detaining her during these periods. Court documents filed on her behalf assert that she was “unlawfully detained/seized/arrested” and request that any evidence gathered during the traffic stops be suppressed, leading to the dismissal of the charges.
Representative Read has publicly maintained that her argument is not an attempt to elevate lawmakers above the law or to evade prosecution for alleged infractions. Speaking to Fox News, she clarified her interpretation of the constitutional text. She also suggested the original intent of the language was to prevent officials from delaying lawmakers or interfering with the execution of legislative business, rather than granting blanket immunity from criminal liability. To bolster her position, her legal filings draw a comparison between lawmakers traveling for official duties and emergency personnel, such as police officers or EMTs, who may exceed speed limits while responding to official responsibilities. However, court records do not indicate any emergency that necessitated Representative Read driving at the speeds alleged by authorities.
The initial legal proceedings for the first speeding case saw a judge reject Representative Read's legislative privilege argument. Consequently, she was found guilty of negligent driving in August 2025. The court imposed a fine of $1,240, with half of the amount deferred. Her ability to retain her driver's license was made conditional upon completing a safe-driving course, avoiding any additional moving violations for a period of two years, and complying with other stipulated conditions.
Following this initial ruling, Representative Read sought to have the New Hampshire Supreme Court address the constitutional issue before her second speeding case proceeded. However, the state's highest court declined to hear the appeal at that preliminary stage, leaving open the possibility for her to raise the issue again through a future appeal. Read subsequently stated that she accepted the negligent driving conviction in the first case to conclude the matter and opted not to pursue an appeal on the constitutional question for that specific instance.
Beyond the constitutional debate, Representative Read has also raised questions about the specifics of the allegations. She disputed the claim of driving over 100 mph, citing the condition of her 2009 Toyota Yaris, which she noted has accumulated more than 440,000 miles, as a factor that casts doubt on the reported speed. She further challenged the methods used to determine her speed and expressed concerns regarding the absence of body-camera footage from the traffic stops.
The constitutional argument has attracted scrutiny from legal observers. The Concord Monitor reported comments from former New Hampshire Supreme Court Chief Justice Bob Lynn, who is now a Republican state representative. Lynn indicated that while the constitutional provision serves to ensure lawmakers can fulfill their legislative duties, it does not preclude them from being prosecuted for alleged violations of the law. He characterized stopping a lawmaker for a traffic violation and subsequently pursuing charges as a reasonable application of the law. Representative Read, in turn, has suggested that the intense scrutiny surrounding her cases is politically motivated, stemming from her perceived effectiveness as a legislator. The legal and political debate surrounding Representative Read's cases continues to unfold, highlighting the complexities of legislative privilege and the application of law to public officials.
