New Hampshire Right-to-Know Law: Records Requests (2026)

New Hampshire's transparency law is the Right-to-Know Law, RSA Chapter 91-A. It gives a right to inspect governmental records, requires a response within five business days when a record is not immediately available, and since 2022 has offered a genuine alternative to litigation: a Right-to-Know Ombudsman who can order records released for a twenty-five dollar filing fee.

What the Right-to-Know Law covers

RSA 91-A applies to public bodies and public agencies at the state, county, and municipal levels: select boards, school boards, planning boards, state departments, and their subordinate bodies. The chapter covers both open meetings and governmental records; this page addresses the records half.

"Governmental records" is defined broadly and is medium-neutral. RSA 91-A:4, I extends the right to inspect records "in the possession, custody, or control" of a body or agency, and RSA 91-A:4, III-a confirms that records created or maintained in electronic form are kept and remain accessible on the same terms as their paper counterparts. Email, text messages, and chat threads are governmental records when they concern public business.

The exemptions live in RSA 91-A:5 and include grand and petit jury records, parole and pardon board records, personal school records of pupils, and the broad category in paragraph IV covering records whose disclosure would constitute an invasion of privacy, along with confidential, commercial, or financial information.

Who can make a request

The statute's word is "citizen." RSA 91-A:4, I says "every citizen" has the right to inspect governmental records during regular business hours.

In practice New Hampshire bodies do not typically demand proof of state residency before answering a request, and the statute contains no residency definition, no proof-of-residency procedure, and no provision authorizing an agency to reject a request for lack of it. That said, the text is what it is, and a nonresident should expect the possibility of a challenge and be prepared to explain that nothing in RSA 91-A conditions access on residency verification. As of August 2026, treat this as an area where the statutory wording and everyday agency practice do not perfectly line up.

You do not have to explain your purpose, and RSA 91-A:4 does not require you to use any particular form.

The five-business-day response rule

New Hampshire's deadline structure is layered, and reading it correctly saves arguments.

RSA 91-A:4, IV(a) comes first: on a request for a reasonably described governmental record, the body must make the record available for inspection and copying when the record is immediately available. There is no five-day grace period for a document sitting in a folder on the counter.

RSA 91-A:4, IV(b) covers everything else. If the body is unable to make the record available for immediate inspection and copying, then within five business days of the request it must either make the record available, deny the request, or provide a written statement of the time reasonably necessary to determine whether the request will be granted or denied, the reason for the delay, and an itemized estimate of any cost.

The third option is where most requests land, and it is important to read it as what it is: a written commitment to a timeline, not an open-ended extension. A statement that says "we are working on it" without a time estimate or the reason for the delay does not satisfy subparagraph (b)(3).

RSA 91-A:4, IV(c) governs denials. A body denying a request in whole or in part must provide a written statement of the specific exemption authorizing the withholding and a brief explanation of how that exemption applies to the record withheld. This is a per-record explanation requirement, not a generic citation to RSA 91-A:5.

Two useful side provisions: RSA 91-A:4, IV(e) lets an agency suggest a narrower scope where doing so would let it produce records more efficiently and affordably, which is often a good deal for a requester in a hurry, and RSA 91-A:4, V allows a body holding records electronically to provide them in a standard electronic format rather than on paper.

Costs under RSA 91-A

Inspection is free. RSA 91-A:4, IV(d) states that no cost or fee may be charged for inspection or delivery, without copying, of governmental records, whether paper, electronic, or otherwise.

If you want copies made on the agency's equipment, you can be charged the actual cost of providing the copy. New Hampshire does not set a statutory per-page ceiling the way New Mexico or New Jersey do, so "actual cost" is the operative limit.

The distinctive New Hampshire charge is the electronic communication fee in RSA 91-A:4, VIII. For requests covering more than 250 electronic communications, a body may charge up to $1.00 per communication, whether delivered on paper or electronically, and there is no charge for the first 250. The statute then defines what counts as one communication in ways that materially reduce the count: attachments are part of a single communication, emails and responses under a single subject line count as one communication, and a text or chat thread on the same topic is a single communication unless it exceeds fifty messages, at which point each additional group of fifty counts as one more.

Bodies must adopt a written policy so the practice is transparent and consistent, and multiple requests from the same person to the same body within thirty days count as one request for this purpose.

The waiver is mandatory, not discretionary. RSA 91-A:4, IX provides that the body "shall waive" the per-communication charge when the requester is an indigent individual as established by the federal poverty line, or when disclosure is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester. Media requesters, as defined in that paragraph, are excepted from the public-interest branch.

If you think a cost estimate is unreasonable or a waiver was improperly denied, RSA 91-A:4, VIII routes that specific dispute to the ombudsman under RSA 91-A:7-b, the public body carries the burden of showing its cost is reasonable, and a determination must issue within ten business days.

How to file

Send the request to the public body or agency that holds the records: the town or city clerk, the school district's superintendent's office, or a state department's records contact. Email is standard and gives you a timestamped receipt.

Cite RSA 91-A:4 and describe the records so a clerk could pull them: the office, the subject matter, and a date range. For email requests, name the individuals by job title, name the subject, and bound the dates, both because it makes the search feasible and because the 250-communication threshold makes scope directly financial.

Ask for the itemized cost estimate that RSA 91-A:4, IV(b)(3) already requires if the records are not immediately available, and if cost is an obstacle, state the basis for a waiver under paragraph IX at the outset rather than after the bill arrives. Our records request generator builds a New Hampshire request with those citations included, and our guide to filing a records request covers the federal FOIA process if your target is a federal agency.

If a New Hampshire body denies your request

RSA 91-A:7 sets up two routes and one important trap.

Superior court. Any person aggrieved by a violation may petition the superior court for injunctive relief. Proceedings get high priority on the court calendar, the petitioner may appear with or without counsel, and the petition is sufficient if it states facts constituting a violation.

The Right-to-Know Ombudsman. In lieu of court, you may file a signed written complaint with the ombudsman under RSA 91-A:7-b along with a $25 fee, which the ombudsman may waive on a finding of inability to pay. The body then has twenty calendar days to acknowledge and answer, extendable for good cause. The ombudsman can compel delivery of records within fourteen to thirty days, conduct an in camera review, compel interviews, order hearings, issue written findings, and order the body to disclose. The ombudsman may also order any remedy a court could order under RSA 91-A:8, and must issue a ruling within thirty calendar days after the deadline for the parties' submissions.

The trap: RSA 91-A:7, III provides that a decision to petition the superior court forecloses the ability to file with the ombudsman, and paragraph IV provides that filing with the ombudsman forecloses petitioning the superior court until the ombudsman issues a final ruling or the deadline for that ruling has passed. You are choosing a forum, not stacking two.

Either ruling can be appealed. Under RSA 91-A:7-c, any party may appeal the ombudsman's final ruling to superior court within thirty calendar days, citizen-initiated appeals carry no filing fee, and the court treats the ombudsman's factual findings as prima facie lawful and reasonable, setting them aside only for errors of law or where persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the decision is unreasonable. That deferential standard cuts both ways and is a real reason to put your best evidence in front of the ombudsman the first time.

Remedies. RSA 91-A:8, I makes a body liable for reasonable attorney fees and costs where the court finds the lawsuit was necessary to enforce compliance or to address a purposeful violation, but only if the court also finds the body knew or should have known its conduct violated the chapter. Paragraph IV adds a civil penalty of not less than $250 and not more than $2,000 against an official who violates the chapter in bad faith. Paragraph II runs the other direction: a court may award fees to the public body if it finds the lawsuit was brought in bad faith or was frivolous, unjust, vexatious, wanton, or oppressive.

Police records and body-camera video

New Hampshire handles law enforcement recordings through RSA 105-D, the law enforcement body-worn camera statute, alongside the RSA 91-A:5 exemptions rather than through a separate access track with its own requester eligibility rules like North Carolina's.

The practical questions on a New Hampshire police video request are therefore the ordinary ones: whether the footage falls within an RSA 91-A:5 exemption, most often the privacy exemption in paragraph IV, and whether an active investigation supports withholding. Ask for redacted footage rather than accepting a blanket denial, and hold the agency to the RSA 91-A:4, IV(c) requirement that it name the exemption and explain how it applies.

Because retention periods for body-camera footage are short in many departments, send the request promptly if the incident is recent. Dispatch audio raises separate questions covered in our guide to 911 calls and public records.

What RSA 91-A does not cover

New Hampshire birth and death certificates are vital records administered by the Division of Vital Records Administration and by town and city clerks, with eligibility limited to people who can show a direct and tangible interest. A Right-to-Know request is the wrong tool; see New Hampshire death records for the correct path.

Court records are governed by the judicial branch's own access rules rather than by RSA 91-A.

The deadlines, fees, waiver rules, and appeal routes above reflect RSA Chapter 91-A as published in the merged chapter text by the New Hampshire General Court and reviewed in August 2026. Individual bodies adopt their own electronic-communication fee policies, so ask for the policy along with any cost estimate. This article is general legal information and not legal advice.

For a side-by-side comparison of every state's deadline, fees, and appeal path, see our public records laws by state hub.