A New Hampshire Democrat is asking the state Supreme Court to toss traffic charges by invoking a 242-year-old constitutional privilege for lawmakers.
State Rep. Ellen D. Read has taken an unusual route to fight speeding allegations, asking the state’s highest court to decide whether legislative privilege bars police from stopping her while she was traveling to or from the State House. The move follows two separate speeding incidents that turned into citations and months of court delays that she says violated her speedy trial rights.
According to court filings, Read told officers she was returning from legislative duties and that her vehicle displayed a New Hampshire state representative license plate. She argues that the constitutional protection for lawmakers meant the deputy had no authority to stop or detain her while she was en route to or from the General Court.
From Fox News:
A Democratic New Hampshire lawmaker accused of driving more than 100 mph in one case and 92 mph in another argues a centuries-old provision of the state constitution protected her from being stopped while traveling to or from legislative session, according to court documents obtained by Fox News Digital.
State Rep. Ellen Read argues police unlawfully stopped and detained her because the New Hampshire Constitution protects lawmakers from being “arrested, or held to bail” while attending, traveling to or returning from the General Court. She contends the charges stemmed from an unconstitutional stop and should therefore be dismissed.
Read was first stopped in December 2024, after authorities alleged she drove more than 100 mph on Interstate 93 in Windham. A second case followed in June 2025, when authorities accused her of driving 92 mph in a 65 mph zone in Londonderry.
In both cases, Read argued she was driving a vehicle displaying a New Hampshire state representative license plate and told officers she was returning from a legislative session.
“At the time of the stop, Ms. Read was a sitting member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives,” her petition states. “She was traveling in a vehicle bearing a New Hampshire State Representative license plate. Upon being stopped, Ms. Read informed the deputy that she was returning from the General Court.”
In response to questions from Fox News Digital, Read said she is not arguing the Constitution shields lawmakers from prosecution, but instead protects them from being stopped while traveling to or from legislative duties.
The lawmaker argues that the state constitution grants lawmakers special protection from arrest when they are doing their jobs. “No member of the House of Representatives, or Senate shall be arrested, or held to bail, on mesne process, during his going to, returning from, or attendance upon, the Court.”
In her petition to the court, Read notes that the provision has been on the books since the Constitution’s ratification and, she says, New Hampshire courts have never interpreted it. “This Petition presents a constitutional question of first impression under N.H. Const. pt. II, art. 21 that has never been addressed by this Court in the 242 years since ratification, alongside a fully developed speedy trial and due process claim that independently warrants relief,” the filing reads.
https://x.com/dcopechatter/status/2077405170086846862
She also claims the state’s handling of the cases has been slow enough to breach her right to a prompt trial, pointing out the matter has been pending for roughly 10 months despite being a minor violation. Read asks the Supreme Court not only to dismiss the charges but to clarify the scope of the centuries-old privilege she says applies to lawmakers traveling for official business.
Critics will say this is an opportunistic attempt to exploit arcane constitutional language to avoid accountability for dangerous driving. The record shows two separate speed allegations: a December 2024 stop for allegedly exceeding 100 mph and a June 2025 stop for driving 92 mph in a 65 mph zone, both of which are serious on their face.
Supporters of strict law-and-order argue that allowing this defense to stand without a clear judicial limit could undermine routine traffic enforcement and public safety. On the other hand, advocates for legislative privilege stress that lawmakers need protection from baseless arrests that could be used to harass or disrupt legislative duties.
Read has used this same constitutional defense before, mounting a similar challenge to a prior citation that a judge rejected. That history means the Supreme Court will face a factual record and procedural history that could make a ruling impactful for future interactions between law enforcement and elected officials.
The case puts an old constitutional text back in the spotlight and asks the court to balance historical protections for legislators against contemporary concerns about public safety and equal treatment under the law. Whatever the outcome, the decision is likely to clarify how a centuries-old phrase fits into a modern system of traffic enforcement and courtroom procedure.
