Summary
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that police officers were entitled to removal from the Hillsborough County Attorney’s “Laurie List” after an arbitrator overturned disciplinary findings concerning alleged excessive use of force and the Attorney General concluded that their conduct was justified. The court clarified that a single alleged use-of-force incident, without evidence of dishonesty or concealment, generally does not bear on an officer’s general credibility. The court reversed and remanded the superior court’s decision.
Holdings
- The trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion by refusing to order removal of the petitioners' names from the Hillsborough County Attorney's Laurie List because the original excessive-force allegation had been determined to be unfounded and no sustained basis remained for their placement.
- A single alleged incident of excessive force, without evidence that the officers lied or misrepresented their conduct, is not ordinarily probative of general truthfulness or untruthfulness and does not, by itself, justify maintaining the officers on a Laurie List used to trigger automatic disclosure.
- Courts may not invariably defer to prosecutors regarding the threshold determination of what adverse information warrants placement of a police officer on a Laurie List.
Questions Presented
- Whether the petitioners were entitled to removal from the Hillsborough County Attorney's Laurie List after the disciplinary finding concerning alleged excessive force was overturned and the incident was removed from their personnel files.
- Whether a single alleged incident of excessive force, without evidence of lying or concealment, is the type of information that supports placement on a Laurie List used to trigger disclosure of police personnel information.
- Whether the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion by deferring to the prosecutor's decision not to remove the petitioners from the Laurie List.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (11)
- State v. Laurie, 139 N.H. 325 (1995)(distinguished and clarified)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963)(followed)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675-76, 682 (1985)(followed)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972)(followed)
- Petition of State of N.H. (State v. Theodosopoulos), 153 N.H. 318, 320-21 (2006)(followed)
- State v. Etienne, 163 N.H. 57, 90-91 (2011)(followed)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437-38 (1995)(followed)
- State v. Puzzanghera, 140 N.H. 105, 107 (1995)(followed)
- State v. Veale, 158 N.H. 632, 639 (2009)(applied by analogy)
- UniFirst Corp. v. City of Nashua, 130 N.H. 11, 14 (1987)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…