The petitioners, Manchester police officers, were suspended for alleged use of excessive force during an incident at a bar. The police chief reported the incident to the county attorney, who placed the officers’ names on the “Laurie List.” After the officers filed grievances under the CBA, an arbitrator determined that the City did not have just cause to take disciplinary action. Similarly, the attorney general’s independent criminal investigation revealed that the officers’ conduct was justified. As a result, the police chief asked the county attorney to remove the officers’ names from the List. When the county attorney refused, the petitioners filed suit in superior court. The trial court denied the officers’ request to remove their names, reasoning that the court could not determine at present whether the information might be exculpatory in a future case.
On appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court first examined the background of the Laurie List, which stems from a prosecutor’s obligation to disclose information to the defendant that is material to either guilt or innocence. This mandate requires a prosecutor to reveal all exculpatory evidence, which includes evidence that could be used by the defense to establish that a police officer, serving as a witness for the prosecution, is not credible. The failure to disclose such information was the central issue in the case of State v. Laurie, 139 N.H. 325 (1995), where the Court determined that the proseuctor’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence about a police officer’s long history of lies, deception, and incompetency violated the defendant’s due process rights. As a consequence, the so-called “Laurie List” was created—a way for police officers and prosecutors to share information about police officers who may act as witnesses for the prosecution. Despite its designation as a “list,” there is no statewide list, although the Hillsborough County Attorney does keep a list. There was no mechanism for removal from the list.
Because of the confidentiality of police personnel files under RSA 105:13-b, the prosecutor often does not know the reason for an officer’s “Laurie” designation. Therefore, in practice, if the prosecutor intends to call a police officer whose name is on the list as a witness, the information that caused the police officer’s name to be added to the list is automatically disclosed to the court to determine whether it contains exculpatory evidence that must be disclosed, creating a stigma and potentially impacting officers’ reputation and professional standing.
As a result, the Court ordered these officers’ names be removed from the Hillsborough County Attorney’s “Laurie List.” The Court reasoned that this case was very different than Laurie. In Laurie, the officer had a long history of lying and deception—a history directly relevant to his credibility as a witness. On the other hand, the Manchester officers had only one incident of alleged excessive force—an allegation that was ultimately determined to be unfounded—and one which would not be relevant to their credibility as witnesses. Therefore, because the information about the Manchester officers was not the type that would be admissible in a trial, it would be improper for these officers’ names to be disclosed automatically any time they may serve as a witness.