119 A.3d 188
N.H.2015Background
- Petitioners are Manchester Police Department officers placed on the Hillsborough County Laurie List after a bar incident involving alleged excessive force.
- Municipal chief disciplined them; arbitrator later found no just cause and compensated petitioners; related records were removed from personnel files.
- Attorney General investigation concluded the officers’ conduct was justified; county attorney refused to remove them from the Laurie List.
- Petitioners sued for declaratory judgment, injunction, and mandamus to remove their names and to stop designation of the incident as a Laurie Issue.
- Trial court denied relief, noting it could not prospectively determine exculpatory value of information and would not substitute its judgment for prosecutors’ duties.
- New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed, holding petitioners must be removed from the Laurie List and remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May petitioners be removed from the Laurie List? | Duchesne argues Laurie List removal warranted given unfounded allegation and arbitration outcome. | Hillsborough County Attorney contends ongoing discretion and Brady obligations govern disclosure and listing decisions. | Yes; trial court erred in not removing them. |
| Can court preemptively determine future exculpatory status of information? | Court should limit deferential discretion by prosecutors and not defer to them on potential exculpatory value. | Prosecutorial duty governs disclosure; court review for future cases is improper. | Court may not rely solely on prosecutorial determinations; reversal warranted. |
| Does RSA 105:13-b limit or affect the Laurie List process? | Statute codifies distinct pathways for exculpatory vs. non-exculpatory information and supports removal. | RSA 105:13-b is not directly at issue since records were removed, but informs balancing interests. | Statute informs, but does not foreclose removal; not dispositive here. |
| Does the petitioners' single incident involvement justify continued Laurie List designation? | Single incident is insufficient to justify ongoing listing absent material credibility concerns. | Laurie List serves to disclose potentially exculpatory or relevant information; listing may be appropriate. | No; singular incident lacking credibility issues does not justify ongoing listing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurie v. State, 139 N.H. 325 (1995) (constitutional obligation to disclose favorable information; remedy for nondisclosure is new trial)
- Theodosopoulos, 153 N.H. 318 (2006) (Brady-like duties; distinguish exculpatory vs. confidential information in police files)
- State v. Etienne, 163 N.H. 57 (2011) (imputing knowledge among prosecutors; duty to learn information held by agencies)
- State v. Puzzanghera, 140 N.H. 105 (1995) (probable cause to review police files for evidence relevant to the case)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (prosecutor's duty to disclose favorable information; materiality standard)