By DAMIEN FISHER, InDepthNH.org
A State Trooper fired after he lied to investigators looking into suspicious activity in his elderly aunt’s trust fund won’t get removed from the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule, also known as the Laurie List.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court issued a case order Tuesday in the John Doe case finding the trooper lied during multiple investigations.

“The plaintiff’s responses during the investigations conducted by the [New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office] and the Division [of State Police] were deceptive, and evidence of this misconduct is reasonably capable of being material to guilt or to punishment,” the court ruled.

The unnamed trooper was never criminally charged, but he was fired in 2015 after he was investigated and reportedly lied about his role in his aunt’s trust account. According to the court records, the trooper and his aunt legally changed her revocable trust to an irrevocable trust, and had the trooper named as the trustee instead of the aunt.

But after these changes were made, the bank manager at the branch managing the trust contacted the aunt with concerns that the trooper was withdrawing a large amount of money from the account, according to the records. The aunt closed her accounts and moved her money to a new bank where she was able to have control, and the bank manager contacted the Attorney General’s Office.

When interviewed by investigators with the Attorney General, the trooper denied that he was, in fact, the trustee of the account. Though he was cleared of criminal charges, the Attorney General’s Office referred the case back to the State Police for an internal investigation.

Just before he was interviewed for the internal investigation, the trooper called the manager at his aunt’s new bank and asked if he or his aunt were the trustee, according to the records. During the interview, he told the State Police investigators he was not the trustee of his aunt’s trust. However, the State Police investigators had the paperwork from the earlier change on the original account showing that the trooper had been made the trustee. When confronted, the trooper claimed he did not remember signing the documents. But that was the end of his time as a State Trooper, according to the records.

“The Division concluded that the plaintiff’s responses during the interview were ‘deceptive and obstructive to the investigation,’ and it terminated the plaintiff’s employment ‘for lack of integrity in violation of the professional conduct standards.’ The Division also notified the plaintiff that his name would be added to the EES.”

The trooper appealed his termination to the state’s Personnel Appeals Board, but that did not end well for the trooper. The PAB upheld the termination finding the trooper knew “what he was doing and why,” with his “incredulous” denials and obfuscations, especially his call to the second bank manager.

“The PAB ultimately concluded that the plaintiff was ‘seeking plausible deniability by only contacting [the second bank’s branch manager], who [the plaintiff] would have reason to know was not fully informed about the . . . changes to the trust,” according to the case order ruling.

After failing to overturn the PAB in court, the trooper tried to get removed from the EES, but was again denied. In his Appeal to the Supreme Court, the trooper argued that because of the difference in the rules of evidence between the PAB and the courts, he has a right to a full hearing in court about his termination and EES placement. That argument did not work as the Supreme Court ruled the differences are not significant enough to change the facts.

“[W]e do not find any differences in hearings conducted before the PAB and the superior court sufficient to warrant a separate hearing, and we are not convinced that a different outcome would result regarding the plaintiff’s misconduct,” the court ruled.

Police officers placed on the EES are entitled to challenge their placement in court under a 2021 law change. The change to make the EES, or Laurie List, public included due process rights for officers who believe they should not be listed among the officers deemed to have compromised credibility.

People accused of crimes have the right to certain information about the officers involved in their arrest and prosecution. Like the federal Brady laws, the EES is used to disclose to defendants when a law enforcement officer has a record of lying, breaking the law, or violating rules such as using unnecessary force.