Officer John Gantert v. City of Rochester & A, 135 A.3d 112

Background

Officer John Gantert completed a second Lethality Assessment Protocol (LAP) based on a videotaped victim interview, signed the arresting officer’s name, and sent it to the county attorney; the second LAP materially conflicted with the original LAP completed by the arresting officer.
Internal investigation found Gantert violated department policies for unsatisfactory performance and falsification; the chief recommended termination and indicated the matter could constitute "Laurie material."
The Police Commission upheld termination; Gantert pursued arbitration under the CBA.
An arbitrator found just cause to discipline but reduced discharge to suspension, concluding Gantert did not intentionally falsify the LAP; the arbitrator declined authority over Laurie-list placement.
The chief notified the county attorney that Gantert’s internal file could contain Laurie material and Gantert’s name remained on the county "Laurie List."
Gantert sued, alleging deprivation of procedural due process and seeking removal and damages; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding the process afforded was constitutionally sufficient.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Attorney General Memo procedures (and Rochester’s adopted process) provide constitutionally sufficient pre-placement process before placing an officer on a Laurie List	Memo procedure is inadequate because it lets nonneutral decisionmakers make determinations after investigation and offers only a limited pre-placement meeting; officers lack a hearing with rights to review evidence and cross-examine	Memo-based procedure (plus the department’s additional Police Commission step) provides adequate process balanced against state interests in prompt identification of potential Brady material	Held: Memo procedures (and Rochester’s process) are constitutionally sufficient given the government’s strong interest and multiple internal review layers
Whether Gantert personally received sufficient procedural due process before being identified as Laurie material	Gantert contends he lacked a full and fair opportunity to be heard and to challenge findings; the process was biased and conclusive before his chance to meet the chief	Defendants assert Gantert had multiple opportunities to be heard (investigator, chief, police commission) and received more process than the Memo requires	Held: Gantert received sufficient due process — investigation, two department-level reviews, opportunity to meet the chief, and a Police Commission hearing satisfied due process
Whether officers must be given a separate, more formal hearing solely addressing Laurie-list placement, distinct from disciplinary/arbitration process	Gantert argues Laurie designation requires a separate hearing with full evidentiary rights and neutral adjudicator	Defendants point out Laurie designation flows from the same underlying conduct and discipline process; arbitration and review of the same facts can address Laurie concerns	Held: No separate pre-placement hearing required; arbitration/disciplinary proceedings addressing the same facts can inform Laurie placement; a post-placement judicial remedy remains available when placement is shown to be baseless

Key Cases Cited

Duchesne v. Hillsborough Cnty. Attorney, 167 N.H. 774 (recognizes Laurie List background; holds officers must be removable when placement lacks basis)
State v. Laurie, 139 N.H. 325 (established disclosure duty leading to creation of Laurie Lists)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence)
State v. Veale, 158 N.H. 632 (procedural due process standard and de novo review of constitutional questions)
Doe v. State of N.H., 167 N.H. 382 (two-part procedural due process analysis and balancing test)
Saviano v. Director, N.H. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 151 N.H. 315 (fundamental fairness and reputation as protected interest)
Appeal of Silverstein, 163 N.H. 192 (upholding nonneutral final decisionmaker where process satisfied due process)
Petition of Bagley, 128 N.H. 275 (reputation and liberty interests)
Clark v. Manchester, 113 N.H. 270 (discusses when government action imposes stigma foreclosing future professional opportunities)