In 2002, the town of Middleton's police chief was placed upon active military duty. While away on such duty, the acting police chief determined that ammunition belonging to the town had been given to a person without permission from the Board of Selectmen. When the chief of police was confronted with these facts, he initially denied taking the property, and then changed his story. When later interviewed by the Attorney General's Office, the chief admitted taking the property, and denied having provided the selectmen with an inconsistent version of the events. The town subsequently dismissed the chief, who appealed the action to the Superior Court.
The Superior Court found that there was substantial cause to terminate the chief, who then appealed to the Supreme Court. The chief argued that the value of the property taken was minor, and resulted in no more than personal dislike between him and the selectmen. The Court disagreed, and found that the pattern of inconsistent statements in the matter created grave doubts as to his ability to hold a position demanding honor and integrity, and that such doubts affected the rights and interests of the public. Thus, even though the value of the property in question was very small, the chief's lack of candor during the investigation was sufficient cause to terminate him from this position.