A New Hampshire lawmaker is challenging two traffic stops through a Legislative Immunity Dispute. She argues the state constitution protected her while traveling to and from legislative duties. The case raises broader constitutional questions about protections granted to elected officials during official travel. It also examines whether those protections apply before any arrest or prosecution begins.
State Representative Ellen Read, a Democrat from New Hampshire, argues police violated the state constitution during two speeding stops. Court filings state she believes lawmakers cannot legally face detention while attending legislative sessions or traveling to and from them. Consequently, she argues officers should not have initiated either traffic stop.
Authorities first stopped Read in December 2024 after alleging she drove above 100 mph on Interstate 93 in Windham. Officers stopped her again in June 2025 after alleging she traveled 92 mph in a 65 mph zone near Londonderry. During both encounters, Read said she was returning from legislative duties.
Furthermore, Read said she drove a vehicle displaying an official New Hampshire State Representative license plate during both incidents. She also informed officers she had been traveling from legislative business. Therefore, she argues constitutional protections applied throughout her commute.
Rather than claiming immunity from prosecution, Read said her argument focuses only on the legality of the traffic stops. According to her interpretation, the constitution prevents officers from stopping legislators during official travel. However, she maintains authorities could still issue citations or pursue legal action afterward.
Read based her legal argument on a provision adopted in the New Hampshire Constitution in 1784. The language states lawmakers cannot be arrested or held to bail while attending legislative sessions. It also extends that protection while traveling to and from those sessions. Read argues the provision protects legislative independence from unnecessary interference.
Additionally, Read emphasized the constitutional language does not place legislators above the law. Instead, she believes the protection only applies during official travel. She said the provision prevents delays that could interfere with legislative responsibilities or voting.
Her petition also argues the New Hampshire Supreme Court has never fully interpreted the constitutional provision. As a result, Read describes the issue as an unresolved constitutional question requiring judicial clarification.
Moreover, Read argues courts should evaluate legislative travel protections similarly to protections granted to emergency responders. She believes lawmakers performing constitutional duties deserve comparable legal consideration.
Despite those arguments, a judge rejected her constitutional defense in the first speeding case. Court records show Read was convicted of negligent driving in August 2025. She received a $1,240 fine, although the court deferred half that amount.
The court also allowed Read to keep her driver’s license. However, she must maintain good behavior for two years. She must also complete a safe-driving course and avoid additional moving violations.
After that decision, Read asked the New Hampshire Supreme Court to consider the constitutional issue before the second case continued. Nevertheless, the court declined to hear the matter at that stage. Instead, it denied her request without prejudice. The ruling allows her to raise the issue again through a future appeal.
Meanwhile, Read later explained on social media that she accepted the reduced negligent driving conviction to conclude the first case. She also said she chose not to immediately appeal the constitutional issue.
Additionally, her office disputed allegations that she exceeded 100 mph. Representatives argued her 2009 Toyota Yaris had more than 440,000 miles and could not reach that speed. They also questioned the officer’s estimate because no radar or pacing evidence established the alleged speed.
Her office further claimed a State House employee speaking with Read during the stop later provided testimony that differed from the officer’s account. It also criticized the lack of body-camera footage. Additionally, it encouraged motorists to use dashboard cameras whenever possible.
As proceedings continue, the Legislative Immunity Dispute remains focused on whether the constitution limited police authority during Read’s official travel. Ultimately, the Legislative Immunity Dispute could influence how courts interpret longstanding constitutional protections for elected officials in New Hampshire.
