NH · state guide

New Hampshire background screening law

What is different here

New Hampshire names consumer reporting agencies in its own criminal records statute. RSA 106-B:14, I(e) authorizes a consumer reporting agency conducting employment screening to request and receive the state criminal conviction record for a felony, misdemeanor or violation of a candidate being screened for employment purposes, including the screening of independent contractors.
The statute goes further than access. Subsection I-a(d) makes the state police record the official source of certified criminal history records for employment and licensing purposes, so in New Hampshire it is the state record rather than the county court file that is the certified source.
Any person may also obtain another person’s public criminal history record for a fee, and the division is expressly forbidden from requiring notarization on that request. The condition attached is a no-resale, no-redistribution rule that binds every recipient.
The state’s own consumer reporting act caps criminal record reporting at seven years and the cap reaches convictions. It is then switched off for any employment at an annual salary of $20,000 or more, a figure carried from the 1971 enactment and untouched by the 2004 amendment. The cap is a dead letter.
There is no private-sector ban-the-box law, no off-duty cannabis protection, and no employment credit-check restriction found. New Hampshire is permissive on content and statutorily open on records, which is a different thing from being permissive by silence.

How the courts here are organized

New Hampshire’s criminal jurisdiction splits by seriousness, and the line is drawn by the maximum penalty rather than by the name of the offense. RSA 592-A:1 provides that the superior court has jurisdiction of all criminal cases and proceedings. RSA 502-A:11 gives each district court original jurisdiction, subject to appeal, over crimes and offenses punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both.

So a charge carrying more than a year of potential imprisonment belongs in the superior court, and anything below that threshold can be brought in the circuit court’s district division. Felony prosecutions are county-based through the superior court.

New Hampshire has ten counties. The superior court sits by county, which means the county is a meaningful unit of search here in a way it is not in Michigan, where the limited-jurisdiction courts sit on city and township lines.

The practical consequence for coverage is simpler than the structure alone would suggest. There is one felony trial court, it sits by county, and the state police record is the certified source for employment purposes. New Hampshire is not a state where a search has to be assembled from dozens of independent sources.

The limit on that reading is that the certified source is certified, not complete. RSA 106-B:14 makes the state police record the official source for employment and licensing, and it does not follow that the record holds everything a county search would find. A pending case that has not reached disposition, and a charge disposed of in the district division, are the obvious candidates for divergence, and neither was tested for this page.

Court structure in New Hampshire
Counties	Ten
Felony court	Superior court, by county. Jurisdiction of all criminal cases
District division	Offenses punishable by a fine of no more than $2,000 or imprisonment of no more than one year
The dividing line	Maximum penalty, not the name of the offense
Certified source	The state police record, for employment and licensing purposes
CRA access	Expressly authorized by statute for employment screening
Notarization	The division may not require it on a public record request
Reuse	No resale, rent, trade, transfer or disclosure to another person

The reason the certified-source finding matters is that it is unusual. California and Massachusetts close the repository to screening providers, and Nebraska and Montana leave access to be inferred from a general dissemination rule. New Hampshire writes the authorization for employment screening into the section itself and then says which record counts.

The subsection is also drawn more widely than an employment report narrowly understood. RSA 106-B:14, I(e) covers the screening of independent contractors as well as candidates for employment, which matches how contingent workforce screening actually works and which several state statutes do not address.

The condition attached is the part to read twice. RSA 106-B:14, I-a(a) provides that no individual or public or private agency receiving confidential criminal history record information from the division shall resell, rent, trade, transfer, make available, or otherwise disclose such information to another person for any purpose. Subsection I-a(c) gives the director power, after notice and a hearing, to prohibit a recipient from requesting or receiving information from the division at all if it breaches that rule. The sanction is loss of access rather than a fine, which makes the redistribution rule an operational control rather than a term of art.

There is a finality provision running the other way. Subsection I-a(b) states that the state and its officials, employees and agents shall not be liable for the improper use, disclosure or inaccuracy of conviction record information provided under the section. So the state does not stand behind the accuracy of what it supplies, notwithstanding that I-a(d) makes the same record the certified source.

Those two provisions sit together awkwardly, and a screening provider operating in New Hampshire holds both. The record is the official source, and the state disclaims responsibility for whether it is right.

The federal baseline

Federal law sets the floor here as it does everywhere. It is at 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., it binds the agency and the employer separately, and it does not vary by state. The FCRA article covers it section by section, including the seven-year limits, the salary threshold and the adverse action sequence, so that this page does not restate any of it.

What follows is only the overlay: what New Hampshire adds on top of that floor, and where it departs from it.

What New Hampshire law adds

Its own consumer reporting statute

Yes. RSA 359-B, titled Consumer Credit Reporting and cited in its own citation section as the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Sections 359-B:1 through 359-B:29, plus 359-B:4-a. Enacted 1971 and closely modeled on the pre-1996 federal act, which is why its figures are the old federal ones.

RSA 359-B:1 · RSA 359-B:5

Lookback limits

Seven years on its face, and the clock reaches convictions. RSA 359-B:5, I(e) covers records of arrest, indictment or conviction of crime in one clause, running seven years from date of disposition, release or parole. Bankruptcies run to ten years, which is the federal figure rather than the 14 years Montana and Kansas both use. Suits and judgments, paid tax liens, collections and any other adverse item run seven years. Paragraph II then displaces the whole of paragraph I for employment at $20,000 or more.

RSA 359-B:5, I(e) · RSA 359-B:5, I(a) · RSA 359-B:5, II(c)

Non-conviction reporting

The same seven years as convictions, with no separate bar. Arrest sits in the same clause as conviction, so New Hampshire does not restrict non-conviction items more tightly than convictions and has no equivalent of the newer state laws that bar non-conviction reporting outright.

RSA 359-B:5, I(e)

Salary threshold

$20,000, at RSA 359-B:5, II(c), and it is expressly an escape from the seven-year cap rather than a definitional limit. The figure dates from the 1971 enactment and the 2004 amendment did not change it. Operationally it voids the seven-year rule for essentially every New Hampshire job, so screening runs on the federal rules and the state cap is a formality.

RSA 359-B:5, II(c)

Ban-the-box

Public sector only, and public employer means state government only. RSA 275:37-c, enacted in 2020 and effective 22 September 2020, bars a public employer or its agent from inquiring about a prospective employee’s prior arrests, criminal charges or convictions on an employment application, and from conducting a criminal record check before the initial interview. Public employer is defined as any department, agency, bureau or administrative unit of the state of New Hampshire, which on its face excludes cities, towns, counties and school districts. No size threshold applies, because the category is governmental rather than sized. Carve-outs exist where the employer is prohibited by state or federal law from hiring those with certain convictions, and where a position is subject to such a law the inquiry may extend only to the convictions that law implicates. Paragraph IV adds a prohibition on discriminating against an applicant based on racial or ethnic origin, including as determined by the applicant’s first or last name.

RSA 275:37-c, I(d) · RSA 275:37-c, II · RSA 275:37-c, III · RSA 275:37-c, IV

Public record notice for employment purposes

Required, in the alternative. RSA 359-B:13 applies to a consumer reporting agency furnishing a report for employment purposes that compiles and reports public record items likely to have an adverse effect on the consumer’s ability to obtain employment. It must either notify the consumer at the time the information is reported, giving the name and address of the recipient, or maintain strict procedures designed to ensure that such information is complete and up to date whenever it is reported. This mirrors the structure of 15 U.S.C. §1681k and, unlike the seven-year cap, it is not displaced by the salary exemption.

RSA 359-B:13

Cannabis

Not protected, and this is the sharpest contrast on the page. RSA 275:37-a prohibits an employer from requiring, as a condition of employment, that an employee or applicant abstain from using tobacco products outside the course of employment. The section names tobacco and stops there. There is no off-duty lawful-product protection for cannabis, and there is no adult-use cannabis law in the state: possession of up to three quarters of an ounce was decriminalized in July 2017 and medical use has been lawful since 2013. The legalization status is verified through late 2024 only and is unverified for 2025 and 2026.

RSA 275:37-a

Credit checks

No restriction found, at the scope actually read. RSA 275 was read in full, all 77 sections, and contains no employment credit-check restriction. The rest of the Code was not searched, so this is recorded as not established rather than as a negative.

The 2024 privacy act

RSA 507-H, titled Expectation of Privacy, effective 1 January 2025. It applies to controllers processing the personal data of 35,000 or more unique consumers, or 10,000 or more where more than 25 percent of gross revenue comes from selling personal data. Enforcement is by the attorney general alone and there is no private right of action. Its consumer definition expressly excludes an individual acting in a commercial or employment context, so RSA 507-H is not a screening law and is not described as one. Two New Hampshire statutes point in opposite directions on employment: RSA 359-B:3, III defines consumer as simply an individual and expressly includes employment purposes, while RSA 507-H:1, VIII carves employment out.

RSA 507-H:1, VIII · RSA 507-H:2, I · RSA 507-H:11 · RSA 359-B:3, III

Statewide repository

Open by express statutory authorization, which is the finding this page turns on. RSA 106-B:14, I(e) permits a consumer reporting agency subject to and complying with 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., conducting employment screening services including the screening of independent contractors, to request and receive a copy of the state criminal conviction record for a felony, misdemeanor or violation of a candidate being screened for employment purposes or as an independent contractor. Subsection I(c)(1) lets any person obtain another person’s public criminal history for a fee, and I(c)(3) forbids the division from requiring notarization on such a request. Subsection I-a(d) makes the state record the official source of certified criminal history records for employment and licensing purposes. Subsection I-a(a) imposes a no-resale, no-redistribution rule, and I-a(c) allows the director to cut off access for a breach. Subsection I-a(b) disclaims state liability for improper use, disclosure or inaccuracy.

RSA 106-B:14, I(c)(1) · RSA 106-B:14, I(c)(3) · RSA 106-B:14, I(e) · RSA 106-B:14, I-a(a) · RSA 106-B:14, I-a(d)

Court structure

The superior court has jurisdiction of all criminal cases and proceedings under RSA 592-A:1, so felonies belong there, and it sits by county. The circuit court’s district division has original jurisdiction over crimes and offenses punishable by a fine of no more than $2,000 or imprisonment of no more than one year under RSA 502-A:11. The dividing line is the maximum penalty rather than the name of the offense.

RSA 592-A:1 · RSA 502-A:11

Automated decision law

Not established in this pass. The state’s statute and bill hosts return an access error from this environment, so no search was run and no negative is reported. The nearest New Hampshire provision on point is the name-based discrimination clause at RSA 275:37-c, IV, which prohibits discriminating against an applicant based on racial or ethnic origin including as determined by the applicant’s first or last name. That is the state’s only statutory gesture at proxy discrimination in hiring, and it is a prohibition on a discriminatory effect rather than a rule about automated tools.

RSA 275:37-c, IV

The statute that surprises people

The seven-year cap that a 1971 salary figure switches off

RSA 359-B:5

New Hampshire has its own consumer reporting act, RSA 359-B, enacted in 1971 and closely modeled on the pre-1996 federal act. Paragraph I of RSA 359-B:5 bars a consumer reporting agency from making a consumer report containing any of six categories of obsolete information. The fifth, at I(e), is the one that matters here: records of arrest, indictment, or conviction of crime which, from date of disposition, release, or parole, antedate the report by more than seven years.

There is no conviction exclusion. Arrest, indictment and conviction sit in a single clause, so the seven-year clock reaches convictions, which is the reverse of the federal position at 15 U.S.C. §1681c(a)(5) and the same approach Montana and Kansas both took.

Paragraph II then removes the cap. It provides that paragraph I is not applicable in the case of any consumer credit report to be used in connection with a credit transaction of $50,000 or more, the underwriting of life insurance of $50,000 or more, or the employment of any individual at an annual salary which equals, or which may reasonably be expected to equal, $20,000 or more.

The source line reads 1971, 430:1, amended by 2004, 85:1, effective 1 January 2005. The 2004 amendment did not move the salary figure. By then the federal number had been raised to $75,000, which is what makes the New Hampshire figure a 1971 number in a 2005 statute.

The consequence is that the seven-year cap does essentially no work. A New Hampshire job paying $20,000 or more, which is nearly every job, is outside paragraph I entirely, and the reporting position returns to the federal rules. The cap survives in the statute and not in practice.

One provision in the same chapter survives alongside it and does operate. RSA 359-B:13 requires a consumer reporting agency furnishing a report for employment purposes that compiles and reports public record items likely to have an adverse effect on the consumer’s ability to obtain employment either to notify the consumer at the time the item is reported, with the name and address of the recipient, or to maintain strict procedures designed to ensure that such information is complete and up to date when reported. That is a live obligation on a route the salary exemption does not touch, and it is discussed in the dimensions below.

Reporting limits at a glance

Every figure below is against New Hampshire law. Where a row says “federal only”, the state has set nothing and 15 U.S.C. §1681c governs.

Reporting limits in New Hampshire
Dimension	Limit	Source and qualification
State consumer reporting law	RSA 359-B:1 to 359-B:29	Enacted 1971. Modeled on the pre-1996 federal act, which is why its figures are the old federal ones.
Lookback, convictions	Seven years on its face	RSA 359-B:5, I(e). Reaches convictions. Displaced in practice by the salary exemption below.
Salary threshold	$20,000	RSA 359-B:5, II(c). A 1971 figure the 2004 amendment did not move. Removes the cap from essentially every job.
Practical effect of the lookback	Dead letter	A provider applying the seven-year cap here would suppress reportable records.
Bankruptcies	10 years	The federal figure, not the 14 years Montana and Kansas use.
Public record notice	Notify or maintain strict procedures	RSA 359-B:13. The alternative form mirrors 15 U.S.C. §1681k. Not displaced by the salary exemption.
Ban-the-box, state agencies	Application and pre-interview check barred	RSA 275:37-c. Inquiries in person or by telephone only, where telephone interviews are standard practice.
Ban-the-box, private	None	Public employer is defined as a unit of the state. Cities, towns, counties and school districts are outside it on the face of the definition.
Name-based discrimination	Prohibited for public employers	RSA 275:37-c, IV. The state’s only provision aimed at proxy discrimination in hiring.
Cannabis, off duty	No protection	RSA 275:37-a names tobacco only. No adult-use law; decriminalized up to three quarters of an ounce, medical lawful since 2013.
Credit checks	Not established	Nothing in RSA 275, which was read in full. The rest of the Code was not searched.
The 2024 privacy act	Not a screening law	RSA 507-H:1, VIII excludes the employment context from its consumer definition.
State repository access	CRAs authorized by statute	RSA 106-B:14, I(e). Includes independent contractor screening.
Notarization	May not be required	RSA 106-B:14, I(c)(3), on a public criminal history request.
Certified source	The state police record	RSA 106-B:14, I-a(d). Official source for employment and licensing purposes.
Redistribution	Prohibited	RSA 106-B:14, I-a(a). No resale, rent, trade, transfer or making available to another. Breach can end access entirely.
Court split	Penalty-based	Superior court for all criminal cases; district division to a $2,000 fine or one year.

Adverse action here

The federal sequence applies: pre-adverse action notice with the report and the summary of rights, a reasonable opportunity to respond, then the adverse action notice with the agency’s details and a dispute route. The FCRA article sets it out in full.

New Hampshire adds one obligation on top of it, and it attaches to a particular kind of item rather than to the process. RSA 359-B:13 requires that where a report for employment purposes includes public record information likely to have an adverse effect on the consumer’s ability to obtain employment, the agency either notify the consumer at the time the item is reported and give the name and address of the recipient, or maintain strict procedures designed to ensure the information is complete and up to date when reported. Either route satisfies the section. The first is a notice the federal sequence does not require, and the second is a standing control on the public record pipeline.

Because the salary exemption at RSA 359-B:5, II(c) removes the seven-year cap but does not touch RSA 359-B:13, the public record notice obligation is the one part of the state’s consumer reporting act that operates on a normal New Hampshire employment report. A provider that has correctly concluded the cap does not apply should not conclude the same about this.

There is a second consequence that follows from the certified-source provision rather than from any notice rule. Because RSA 106-B:14, I-a(d) makes the state police record the certified source for employment purposes, a dispute about what a New Hampshire record says is a dispute about the state’s data. Subsection I-a(b) disclaims state liability for inaccuracy, so the correction route runs through the division without the state accepting responsibility for the error. That is a different position from a dispute about a county court file, and it is worth knowing before it comes up.

Screening in New Hampshire: what your process needs

Confirm the search is not described as running on the seven-year cap. RSA 359-B:5, II(c) displaces it for employment at $20,000 or more, and applying the cap would suppress reportable records.
Confirm the RSA 359-B:13 public record obligation is met by one of its two routes. The salary exemption does not reach it.
Confirm the no-resale rule at RSA 106-B:14, I-a(a) is reflected in how the state record is handled, stored and passed on. The sanction under I-a(c) is loss of access to the division.
Confirm a New Hampshire record is described as sourced from the state police record, because that is the certified source for employment purposes under I-a(d), and not as a county court search.
Confirm the configuration does not rely on a state ban-the-box rule for a private-sector client. RSA 275:37-c reaches state agencies only.
Confirm the ban-the-box position for a New Hampshire municipal, county or school-district client is reviewed separately, because the statutory definition of public employer does not reach them, though no authority was located confirming that reading.
Confirm no off-duty cannabis protection is assumed. RSA 275:37-a names tobacco only.
Confirm no reliance is placed on the 2024 privacy act. RSA 507-H excludes the employment context from its consumer definition.

Related states

What we do

New Hampshire hands a screening provider the record. Its criminal records statute names consumer reporting agencies and authorizes them to obtain state conviction records for employment screening, forbids requiring notarization, and designates the state police record the certified source for employment purposes. The state’s own seven-year cap on convictions is switched off by a $20,000 salary figure carried from 1971, so the permissiveness is complete and it is deliberate. What is left to get right is the no-redistribution rule and the public record notice, and both are the kind of thing a provider either has in place or does not.

Sources

RSA 359-B:5, obsolete information
RSA 359-B:3, definitions
RSA 359-B:13, public record information for employment purposes
RSA 275:37-c, use of criminal records in employment decisions
RSA 275:37-a, discrimination on basis of using tobacco products prohibited
RSA 106-B:14, criminal records and reports, and access by consumer reporting agencies
RSA 507-H:1 and 507-H:2, expectation of privacy, definitions and application
RSA 507-H:11, notice and enforcement
RSA 592-A:1, superior court jurisdiction
RSA 502-A:11, district court criminal jurisdiction
15 U.S.C. §1681c(a)(5) and §1681k, federal reporting limits and public record notice

Last reviewed 23 September 2026. This page is checked on a quarterly cycle, because state screening law changes every legislative session. Nothing here is legal advice; see the terms of use.