New Hampshire Senate Bill SB376

New Hampshire 2022 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/17/21
• Refer: 12/17/21
• Report Pass: 2/10/22
• Report Pass: 3/23/22
• Engrossed: 4/1/22
• Refer: 4/1/22
• Report Pass: 4/12/22
• Refer: 4/21/22
• Report Pass: 4/28/22
• Enrolled: 6/7/22

Caption

Relative to creating a board to review police incidents involving citizens affected by mental health issues.

Impact

If enacted, SB376 will influence state laws by formalizing a more systemic approach to analyzing law enforcement practices when mental health is a factor. The proposed review board is intended to provide oversight and foster accountability in police encounters with mentally ill citizens, which could lead to modifications in standard operating procedures for law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, the bill aims to expand the number of officers trained in crisis intervention, thereby enhancing the ability of law enforcement to handle situations involving mental health crises more effectively.

Summary

Senate Bill 376 (SB376) aims to establish a committee tasked with evaluating the creation of a review board dedicated to examining police incidents involving individuals with mental health issues. The bill underscores the necessity for a thorough investigation into the rising number of deadly force incidents correlated with mental health disorders. This initiative is driven by the recognition that there has been a significant uptick in incidents involving mentally ill individuals, necessitating an organized oversight mechanism. This committee's findings and records will be exempt from disclosure, ensuring that sensitive information remains protected from litigation or disciplinary actions.

Contention

Despite its beneficial intentions, the bill has faced scrutiny regarding the allocation of substantial financial resources—$3,950,000 appropriated for crisis intervention training (CIT). Opponents may argue about the efficacy and sustainability of such funding amidst other pressing budgetary needs. There is also a concern surrounding the potential bureaucratic nature of the proposed review board, with critics questioning whether it would lead to actionable change or merely create another layer of oversight.