A New Hampshire state representative facing allegations of driving more than 100 mph in one case and 92 mph in another is arguing that a 1784 provision of the state constitution barred police from stopping her while she was traveling to or from legislative session. State Rep. Ellen Read, a Democrat, contends that the traffic stops were unconstitutional and that all evidence obtained during them should be suppressed, according to court documents.
Read was first stopped in December 2024 after authorities alleged she drove more than 100 mph on Interstate 93 in Windham. A second stop followed in June 2025, when she was accused of driving 92 mph in a 65 mph zone in Londonderry. In both instances, Read says she was driving a vehicle displaying a New Hampshire state representative license plate and informed officers that she was returning from a legislative session.
At the center of Read’s defense is Article 21 of the New Hampshire Constitution, which 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 argues that this provision, drafted in 1784, was intended to prevent local officials from delaying lawmakers and interfering with legislative votes, not to exempt legislators from criminal liability.
«The plain reading of the Constitution says that legislators cannot be stopped on their way to or from their duties,» Read said in a statement. «It says nothing of being ticketed or arrested at the end of the commute, and nothing about prosecution.» She emphasized that her challenge focuses on the legality of the stops rather than the underlying charges.
Read’s petition argues that 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. «The question is not whether a sitting legislator is ‘above the law,’» the petition states. Instead, Read argues that 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 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, but 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, her office disputed allegations that she exceeded 100 mph, arguing that 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 that 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. Her office also criticized the lack of body-camera footage from the stop and said she now encourages motorists to use dashboard cameras.
«The unconstitutional manner of the stops, and not the charge, therefore, was the topic of discussion in the case,» Read said. The case has drawn attention to the rarely invoked constitutional provision and raises questions about the limits of legislative privilege in modern traffic enforcement.
