Markets 
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
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.
BILL BELICHICK’S DAUGHTER-IN-LAW FACES ARREST ORDER IN NORTH CAROLINA AFTER SKIPPING COURT APPEARANCE: REPORT
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.
JACKSON SCOLDS COLLEAGUES IN SOLO DISSENT AFTER COURT JUMPS INTO ROUTINE POLICE-STOP CASE
“The plain reading of the Constitution says that legislators cannot be stopped on their way to or from their duties,” Read said. “It says nothing of being ticketed or arrested at the end of the commute, and nothing about prosecution.”
“Under the plain language of the New Hampshire Constitution, defendant was unlawfully detained/seized/arrested in violation of her Legislative privilege,” one motion states. “All evidence illegally obtained should be suppressed, and the charge dismissed.”
At the center of Read’s defense is a 1784 provision of the New Hampshire Constitution that states, “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.”
Read said the provision was intended to prevent local officials from delaying lawmakers and interfering with legislative votes, not to exempt legislators from criminal liability.
FORMER WISCONSIN JUDGE HANNAH DUGAN AVOIDS JAIL TIME FOR OBSTRUCTING ARREST OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT
“It was always the commute itself that was meant to be protected… Not the legislator protected from breaking the law,” she said.
Read’s petition argues the New Hampshire Supreme Court has never interpreted the scope of the provision in the roughly 240 years since it was ratified, calling it a constitutional question of first impression that the state’s highest court has never squarely addressed.
“The question is not whether a sitting legislator is ‘above the law,'” the petition states.
Instead, Read argues, lawmakers traveling to and from legislative duties should receive the same “functional analysis” applied to police officers or emergency medical technicians who violate traffic laws while performing official duties.
A judge rejected that argument in Read’s first speeding case.
Court records show she was found guilty of negligent driving in August 2025 and fined $1,240, with half the fine deferred.
She was also allowed to keep her license as long as she maintained good behavior for two years, completed a safe-driving course and avoided additional moving violations.
Read later asked the New Hampshire Supreme Court to take up the constitutional question before the second speeding case proceeded. The court declined, denying her petition without prejudice and allowing her to raise the arguments again in a future appeal that complies with court rules.
Read defended her handling of the case in an Instagram statement, saying she accepted the reduced negligent driving charge “to end the case” and did not appeal the constitutional issue.
In the same statement, Read’s office disputed allegations that she exceeded 100 mph, arguing the 2009 Toyota Yaris she was driving, which she said has more than 440,000 miles on it, “simply cannot go that fast.”
Her office also said the officer did not use radar or clock her speed and instead estimated it while accelerating to catch up to her vehicle. Read’s office further claimed a State House employee who was on the phone with her during the traffic stop later testified to an account that conflicted with the officer’s version of events.
Read’s office also criticized the lack of body-camera footage from the stop and said she now encourages motorists to use dashboard cameras.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Read said her challenge focuses on the legality of the traffic stops rather than the underlying charges.
“The unconstitutional manner of the stops, and not the charge, therefore, was the topic of discussion in the case,” she said.
Read the full article here
