CONCORD, N.H. — Changes to a child exploitation bill have some law enforcement officials worried that child pornography could wind up back in the hands of offenders.
The concerns were raised during a House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee meeting Thursday on Senate Bill 495, designed to strengthen New Hampshire's laws to prevent child exploitation.
A recent amendment to the bill would allow defense lawyers to receive copies of child pornography with court-ordered approval. Law enforcement officials worry that such a change could open the possibility of the pornography being accidentally recirculated to either the public or the offender awaiting trial.
In New Hampshire, defense lawyers typically go to a county attorney's office or another law enforcement agency to see the evidence before going to trial.
Rockingham County Attorney James Reams said prosecutors are adamant about making sure defense lawyers have access to the materials, otherwise prosecutors risk losing the case.
"We're not trying to shirk our responsibility," he said yesterday. "We provide access to all the videotapes and different things being introduced into evidence. For whatever reason, we're getting more requests for copies of the material. We think that's just further exploitation of victims."
Reams said he believes changing the law goes too far.
If passed as amended, a judge would issue a protective order so that the pornography could not be distributed, but it does allow the accused access.
Rep. David Welch, R-Kingston, said he worries not only about further victimization, but about information being mistakenly leaked.
"People make mistakes all the time. You could leave a briefcase in a restaurant," he said. "Then the person who is a victim becomes a victim again."
Welch said he believes deliberation on the House bill needs to be slow and careful. It's one in a series of bills being proposed to get New Hampshire in compliance with the Adam Walsh Act by 2009. The act sets national standards for child protection laws.
Defense lawyer Mark Stevens of Salem said the courts should be able to balance giving lawyers access to the material without it being supplied back to the accused.
Stevens hasn't participated in the debate and doesn't deal with such cases, but said a judge could simply limit a copy of the materials to only the lawyer.
"There are cases now where a protective order requires you to turn evidence back over to the state when the case is over," he said. "If I need to look at something at 8 o'clock at night, I have a feeling there isn't going to be anyone at the local prosecutor's office to answer my call."
Whether the amendment ultimately survives remains to be seen. A subcommittee working on the bill is scheduled to meet next week.
Rep. Gene Charron, R-Chester, said learning about the possible ways the materials could be leaked was an eye-opener for him. Opponents of the bill said that whenever the material is viewed on a computer, a part of the file is left on a computer which someone else could later recover.
He worries that such recovered information could eventually make its way back to the Internet. "It's the type of material that still needs a high degree of control."
