Court Opinion

ID: 9765328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:00:21.769725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:08.985647
License: Public Domain

Dalianis, J.,
concurring specially. I agree with the majority that the use of the word “any” in RSA 236:130, I (Supp. 2007) is modified by the phrase “including but not limited to” and the list that follows. Although, on its face, the word “any” is broad language, “there is a common rule that a general statutory term is to be understood to cover further instances comparable to any specific examples listed with it.” State v. Hodgkiss, 132 N.H. 376, 379 (1989). Moreover, “[w]e have previously held that the use of the phrase ‘including, but not limited to’ in a statute limits the application of that statute to the types of items therein particularized.” In the Matter of Fulton & Fulton, 154 N.H. 264, 267 (2006). Accordingly, I concur with the majority’s holding that “read in the context of the statute as a whole, the plain and unambiguous language of RSA 236:130, I, prohibits ‘any other device’ that is comparable to those devices ... specified.”
I also agree with the majority that the devices specified in RSA 236:130, I, “all possess the ability to track or monitor the movement of a motor vehicle via a signal transmitted through or from the device” and that “[a] police officer’s patrol-car computer and radio do not share this capability.”
I write separately to raise the following concern. In my opinion, RSA 236:130, I, is internally inconsistent. Although, on its face, this statute purports to define “surveillance” as “the act of determining the ownership of a motor vehicle or the identity of a motor vehicle’s occupants,” the devices listed in the statute do not do this. Cameras, imaging devices, transponders, cellular telephones, global positioning satellites and radio frequency identification devices do not by themselves enable one to determine who owns a vehicle or who occupies one. Rather, as the majority aptly notes, all of these devices have the ability to track or monitor a motor vehicle’s movement. Thus, it seems to me either the prefatory language in RSA 236:130,1, or the statute’s list of devices should be revised to cure the apparent incongruity.