CHAPTER 89
HB 1264-FN - FINAL VERSION
10feb00.....3243h
10feb00.....3370h
3/30/00...3953s
2000 SESSION
05/10
HOUSE BILL 1264-FN
AN ACT relative to the unlawful use of theft detection shielding devices.
SPONSORS: Rep. P. Katsakiores, Rock 13; Rep. Pantelakos, Rock 30; Rep. McColgan, Hills 24
COMMITTEE: Criminal Justice and Public Safety
This bill makes the use or possession of theft detection shielding devices or theft detection device removers a misdemeanor.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
10feb00.....3243h
10feb00.....3370h
3/30/00...3953s
00-2187
05/10
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand
AN ACT relative to the unlawful use of theft detection shielding devices.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
89:1 New Section; Use or Possession of Theft Detection Shielding Devices and Theft Detection Device Removers. Amend RSA 637 by inserting after section 10 the following new section:
637:10-a Use or Possession of Theft Detection Shielding Devices and Theft Detection Device Removers.
I. A person commits unlawful use of a theft detection shielding device when he or she engages in the following acts:
(a) Knowingly manufactures, sells, offers for sale, or distributes a laminated or coated bag or device specially designed, marketed, and intended to be used to shield merchandise from detection by an electronic or magnetic theft alarm sensor.
(b) Knowingly possesses any laminated or coated bag or device specially designed, marketed, and intended to be used to shield merchandise from detection by an electronic or magnetic theft alarm sensor, with the intent to commit a theft.
II. A person commits unlawful possession of a theft detection device remover when he or she knowingly possesses any tool or device designed to allow the removal of any theft detection device from any merchandise, with the intent to use such tool to remove the detection device from the merchandise without the permission of the merchant or person owning or holding said merchandise.
III. Persons convicted of either the use or possession of theft detection shielding devices or theft detection device removers shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
89:2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect upon its passage.
(Approved: April 27, 2000)
(Effective Date: April 27, 2000)
LBAO
00-2187
Amended 3/14/00
HB 1264 FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT relative to the unlawful use of theft detection shielding devices.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Judicial Council has determined this bill, as amended by the Senate, may increase state expenditures by an indeterminable amount in FY 2000 and each year thereafter. There may be an indeterminable increase in county expenditures in FY2000 and each year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on local expenditures or state, county and local revenue.
METHODOLOGY:
The Administrative Office of the Courts stated this bill creates a misdemeanor offense, and has determined this legislation will have little, if any, fiscal impact on the Branch, as it will not significantly impact caseload.
The Judicial Council assumed that any cases arising from the enactment of this law for which the Indigent Defense Fund may be liable, will in the first instance, be handled by the public defender or contract attorneys who accept these cases on a fixed fee basis of $250 for each misdemeanor charge. If an assigned counsel attorney must be used, the hourly rate of $60, with a fee cap of $1,000 for misdemeanor cases will apply. If a motion to exceed the fee cap is approved and/or "services other than counsel" are approved, these will also be chargeable to the Indigent Defense Fund. The Council is unable to predict the number of cases or trials which may arise as a result of the passage of this legislation, therefor, they are unable to estimate the dollar amount of the anticipated costs of such representation.
The Department of Corrections stated that there would be no fiscal impact to the Department since misdemeanor offenses are served in a county facility. Should probation/parole supervision be ordered, the average cost of such supervision in FY 1999 was $842 per inmate. The cost to counties cannot be determined since it is not possible to accurately predict the number of individuals that would be incarcerated at a county facility as a result of this legislation.
The Department of Justice stated this bill would have no fiscal impact on the Department.