By DAMIEN FISHER, InDepthNH.org

The state Supreme Court sided with a Salem Police Officer caught up in the state investigation into the department in another instance in which the protracted and expensive probe into the Salem police department failed to get results for the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office.

Mike Verrocchi is challenging his placement on the state’s Exculpatory Evidence Schedule, also known as the Laurie List, over what amounts to a years-old prank and a speeding ticket.  In a ruling released Wednesday, the Court agreed that Verrocchi’s infraction does not rise to the level of the EES.

The EES includes the names of police officers with sustained discipline in their confidential personnel files for dishonesty or excessive force. A law passed three years ago allowed police on the list to argue in Superior Court why their names should be removed from the list before being made public.

Verrocchi filed his appeal as a John Doe so his name is not used in the order. He lost in Superior Court and appealed to the state Supreme Court.

“[Verrocchi’s] conduct is not reasonably capable of being material to guilt or to innocence because it is stale and does not reflect negatively on his character and credibility,” the Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous 3-0 decision.

Verrocchi got in trouble in 2012 for a prank he pulled on other officers, according to court records. While driving on Route 28 as he was off duty, Verrocchi spotted another officer on patrol. Verrocchi began speeding in his car, going 60 in a 30 mile per hour zone. The other officer chased him, and Verrocchi refused to pull over and kept driving, even evading spike strips placed on the road by another officer. 

When he finally stopped, Verrocchi eventually pulled into a parking lot, stopped his vehicle, and “laughed it off as a joke” when he spoke with the other officers. He viewed the incident as part of an “ongoing prank” within the SPD.

But his superiors were not amused and Verrocchi ended up with a one-day suspension for “conduct unbecoming an employee.” His discipline was negotiated through his union and the Department agreed to not pursue any charges or further action after he took responsibility.

But Verrocchi’s 2012 speeding prank came to light in 2018 after the Town of Salem conducted an internal audit of the Police Department. That audit turned into a wide-ranging state investigation with officers accused of high-profile crimes like gun trafficking and workers compensation fraud. But, there has not been any successful conviction coming out of the investigation.

The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office ended up charging Verrocchi almost six years after the prank, hitting him with two criminal charges of reckless conduct with a deadly weapon, and disobeying a police officer. At the same time, the Department of Justice pushed Salem to place Verrocchi on the EES.

Like the other cases against Salem cops, Verrocchi’s case fell apart and the state ended up dropping the criminal charges. Verrocchi pleaded guilty to speeding, which is a violation-level offense and not considered a crime under New Hampshire law. The records of his arrest on the two criminal charges were eventually annulled, meaning they never happened as far as the law is concerned. 

The Court found that Verrocchi never lied about the speeding incident when he was disciplined in 2012, and he never tried to cover it up. Since he did not lie, there is no legal record he was ever arrested, and he was never convicted of any crime, it is unlikely the incident would be allowed into a criminal trial as evidence to impeach Verrocchi’s character as a police officer, the Court ruled. 

“[A]side from this apparent lack of judgment, nothing in the complaint or accompanying documentation suggests that the plaintiff acted dishonestly or attempted to conceal his conduct. Therefore, without more information regarding the plaintiff’s conduct would not be admissible to impeach his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness,” the Court ruled. 

“We reverse the trial court’s order granting the DOJ’s motion to dismiss and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”