There are traffic-ticket defenses, and then there is this.
A Democratic state lawmaker in New Hampshire is invoking a 242-year-old provision of the state constitution to argue that police were not allowed to stop her while she was returning from legislative business.
That argument follows two encounters on Interstate 93. Authorities allege that state Rep. Ellen Read was traveling 107 mph during the first and 92 mph during the second.
Yes, you read that correctly.
The original report landed Monday:
A New Hampshire state lawmaker who was caught driving 107 mph in 2024 and accused of driving 92 mph on the same highway in 2025 has been making an audacious argument to avoid legal consequences for her speeding. https://t.co/qDtAFf5Ksh
— The Boston Globe (@BostonGlobe) July 13, 2026
The Boston Globe first uncovered the two stops and the litigation that followed.
According to the report, a Rockingham County sheriff’s deputy stopped Read on December 2, 2024, as she drove south on I-93 in Windham. Authorities say she was traveling 107 mph in a 65-mph zone while returning from the State House and heading to her job in Woburn, Massachusetts.
The deputy issued a citation and let her continue rather than arresting her. Read was later found guilty of negligent driving, a noncriminal violation, after a judge rejected her constitutional argument.
Her sentence included a $1,240 fine, with half deferred, a safe-driving course, and a requirement that she avoid additional moving violations for two years if she wanted to keep her license. A hearing on the deferred portion is set for August 12.
Then came the second stop.
On June 5, 2025, another deputy cited Read for allegedly driving 92 mph in a 65-mph zone in Londonderry. That speeding case remains pending and is expected to be rescheduled for a bench trial after the original judge recused himself.
Now, here is the important nuance.
Read says she is not claiming lawmakers are immune from prosecution. She says the constitution protected the commute itself, meaning an officer could ticket or arrest her after that protected trip ended, but could not stop and detain her while she was traveling to or from legislative duties.
That may be a narrower argument than “lawmakers are above the law.” It is not necessarily a less stunning one.
Fox News Digital reviewed the court documents and obtained Read’s explanation of the claim. The provision at issue is Part II, Article 21 of the New Hampshire Constitution, adopted in 1784.
It says members of the House and Senate shall not be “arrested, or held to bail, on mesne process” while going to, returning from, or attending the General Court.
The obvious historical purpose is to prevent officials from using detention to interfere with the Legislature. Read argues that protection also means a traffic stop during the covered trip is unconstitutional, even if the alleged offense can be prosecuted later.
Fox also reported that Read accepted the reduced negligent-driving charge in the first case to bring that prosecution to an end. She continues to maintain that the constitutional dispute concerns the way officers conducted the stop, not whether an alleged traffic offense can ever be charged.
Her Rule 11 petition to the New Hampshire Supreme Court asked the justices to take up what it called a question of first impression. The filing said no reported New Hampshire decision had interpreted Article 21 in the 242 years since its ratification.
The petition also asked that evidence from the 2025 stop be suppressed and the charge dismissed. It argued that Read had been unlawfully detained while returning from the General Court in a car bearing a state representative license plate.
The filing tried to frame her commute like the official travel of a police officer or emergency medical technician responding to an urgent call. But neither the petition nor Read’s representative identified an emergency that would explain the alleged speed in the 2024 encounter.
The state’s highest court declined to exercise original jurisdiction, denying the petition without prejudice. The order neither endorsed Read’s constitutional theory nor permanently foreclosed her from raising it again.
The justices simply declined to resolve it through that extraordinary procedural route at this stage.
Read’s office has pushed back hard on the factual account of the first stop:
Statement from the Office of Rep. Ellen Read:
This citations from 2 years ago is a closed matter. But a few facts got left out of Saturday's story that we think DO matter.
— Rep. Ellen Read 🍉 (@Ellen4NH) July 14, 2026
In the thread that followed, her office said the 2009 Toyota Yaris had more than 440,000 miles on it and was incapable of reaching 107 mph. It further claimed the deputy neither used radar nor clocked her speed, but estimated it while accelerating to catch up.
Read’s office said she believed she was traveling approximately 85 mph. Even by that account, she would have been roughly 20 mph above the posted limit.
There is no body-camera footage from either encounter. The sheriff’s office told the Globe that its deputies did not have body-worn cameras, leaving the parties to fight over testimony, citations, and the surrounding records.
Those factual disputes matter. An allegation is not a magic wand, and no official should lose the right to contest the government’s evidence merely because the defense sounds politically outrageous.
But the constitutional theory creates a practical hole large enough to drive a Yaris through.
If police must allow a legislator to continue an allegedly dangerous commute and wait until it ends before acting, how are they supposed to protect everyone else on the road in the meantime?
If the officer cannot lawfully gather the evidence during the trip, how is a later ticket or arrest supposed to work?
And how far does the privilege reach? Would it cover reckless driving?
What about an impaired driver, a collision, or a lawmaker who simply says the trip is legislative?
Read’s own official House biography says she is serving her fourth term and founded the House Progressive Caucus. She is not a first-week legislator who wandered into an obscure clause by accident.
The state profile says she represents Newmarket and Newfields, serves as clerk of the Fish and Game and Marine Resources Committee, and sits on the House Special Committee on Housing.
It also identifies Read as chair of Newmarket’s Energy and Environment Committee and the state lead for the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators during the current term.
Legislative privilege exists for a serious reason: elected representatives should be able to attend sessions and cast votes without hostile officials abusing civil process to keep them away.
It should not become a temporary no-pull-over lane for the people who write the laws.
A constitution is a shield for liberty. It is not a flashing badge on the dashboard.
This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.
