New Hampshire

John Doe cops asking N.H. Supreme Court to spare their reputations – The Boston Globe

Published

2 years ago

May 14, 2024

John Doe cops asking N.H. Supreme Court to spare their reputations – The Boston Globe

While each lawsuit turns on its own set of facts, these cases together reflect long-running debate over the extent to which information about police misconduct must be made public. They could also clarify whether off-the-job misconduct or relatively minor incidents justify putting an officer’s name on the list.

“These are really important cases concerning the standard that’s going to be applied with respect to when an officer is placed on the list,” said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire.

The ACLU and the New Hampshire Department of Justice haven’t always seen eye to eye on how transparent the state should be about its Exculpatory Evidence Schedule, but Bissonnette said the DOJ deserves a lot of credit for its careful approach to interpreting the constitutional and statutory factors at play in determining which officers to place on the list.

“The attorney general’s office — this attorney general and prior attorneys general — clearly have taken seriously that obligation concerning placement and are doing a commendable job in litigating these cases,” he said.

Prosecutors have a constitutional obligation to disclose evidence that could help defendants poke holes in the criminal charges brought against them, including evidence from police personnel files. In 1995, because prosecutors had withheld records that reflected poorly on the character and credibility of a detective who testified against Carl Laurie at trial, the New Hampshire Supreme Court overturned Laurie’s first-degree murder conviction.

That led the DOJ to keep what was known as the “Laurie List,” a tool to help prosecutors identify officers with known credibility issues, whose personnel files could include exculpatory evidence that may need to be disclosed to defendants.

The list, which became known as the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule, was kept confidential for decades. But the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that it isn’t exempt from disclosure under the state’s public records law. The legislature then enacted a statute in 2021 to designate the list as a public record and establish a process and timeline for officers to file lawsuits challenging their placement on the list.

Of the 266 names now listed, 50 remain redacted from public view as dozens of John Doe lawsuits move through the judicial system, according to the DOJ’s latest quarterly update.

Brandon F. Chase, an assistant attorney general, said all of this week’s oral arguments about the list revolve around what exactly that 2021 law means when it refers to “potentially exculpatory” evidence.

“A couple have a few other issues folded in — like staleness of conduct or due process requirements — but the primary issue is the meaning of ‘potentially exculpatory’ under the statute,” he said.

An attorney for the officers, Marc G. Beaudoin, said these cases are also about the state’s duty to protect the due process rights of law enforcement personnel.

“What you’re trying to balance out here is the criminal defendant’s right to any exculpatory information that’s in a personnel file versus a police officer’s property rights in their good name,” Beaudoin said.

Little information is available publicly about the lawsuits filed pseudonymously under seal in superior courts across the state. But the ACLU intervened last year in at least eight cases and successfully argued redacted filings must be made public when an appeal reaches the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

The redacted filings do not identify plaintiffs, but they do shed some light on the nature of the underlying disputes.

The first of the five cases up for oral arguments this week pertains to a Manchester police officer who resigned after his arrest in 2020 for drunken driving. The trial court agreed his off-duty misconduct was irrelevant to the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule, but the DOJ appealed, arguing it is statutorily obligated to include his name on the list.

The second case involves a Hanover police officer who was suspended for two weeks for forging a doctor’s signature on a medical clearance form. That incident was removed from his personnel file after he went five years without any further issues, but his name was added to the list in 2021 anyway. He sued, lost, and appealed.

The third case pertains to a Hanover police officer whose name was added to the list in 2021 based on decades-old allegations that he had been dishonest during a job application and interview process with another agency. He maintains he never lied or withheld information intentionally.

The fourth involves an off-duty Salem police officer who led colleagues on a high-speed chase as a prank. He was given a one-day suspension and later pleaded guilty to a speeding violation. (The redacted court records do not name him, but news reports and a DOJ press release indicate Sergeant Michael Verrocchi reached an agreement in 2021 stemming from the 2012 incident.)

The fifth case relates to a Nashua police officer who responded to a domestic disturbance in 2011 and served a temporary restraining order but did not immediately seek to enforce the terms of the order. The officer has been trying since 2018 to have his name removed from the list.

The four additional cases that will be submitted this month on written briefs, without oral argument, pertain to four New Hampshire State Police troopers. The first trooper falsely claimed he hadn’t received an email attachment; the second concealed a local police chief’s drunken driving more than 20 years ago; the third sent inappropriate text messages to arrestees and lied about it; and the fourth was accused of being untruthful about his status as a trustee for his aunt, according to the redacted court records.

These cases come after a joint lawsuit from three troopers went before the Supreme Court for oral arguments last June. In that case, the troopers padded their activity logs more than 20 years ago to artificially inflate the number of traffic stops they told their bosses they had performed.

Beaudoin argued the only rationale for keeping the names of those three now-retired troopers on the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule would be to publicly shame them, which isn’t the purpose of the list. He argued the state’s process for disputing placement on the list is too difficult.

“Right now, it is virtually impossible to be removed from the list due to the expansive nature of the word ‘potentially,’” he told the justices.

Emily C. Goering, an assistant attorney general, argued the plaintiffs were muddying the waters. The two key questions for courts to consider when reviewing an individual’s placement on the list, she said, are whether the underlying conduct was potentially exculpatory and whether the officer received due process.

“Despite the fact that the conduct might have occurred 20 years ago, it speaks to the petitioners’ general credibility, their recitation of events, their reliability,” she said. “That’s exactly the kind of information that can be beneficial to a criminal defendant or a criminal defense attorney.”

Goering said the DOJ doesn’t have discretion to pick and choose which officers with potentially exculpatory evidence in their personnel files will be included on the list. For the document to be an effective tool, she said, it needs to cast “the widest net.”

One of the five justices who heard those oral arguments, Gary E. Hicks, has since retired. His successor, Melissa B. Countway, will review written briefs and a recording of the oral arguments to participate in the court’s decision, according to an order Chief Justice Gordon J. MacDonald issued in January.

MacDonald, who served as attorney general before his 2021 appointment to the court, drafted a memo in 2018 that updated earlier guidance on the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule. His memo drew criticism from the ACLU after he and Governor Chris Sununu announced the changes as protecting the due process rights of police.

MacDonald didn’t recuse himself from the oral argument last June and didn’t recuse himself from the cases on Tuesday’s calendar, but he has recused himself from four cases on Thursday’s calendar.

A court spokesperson, Av Harris, said disqualification is determined on a case-by-case basis under the New Hampshire Code of Judicial Conduct, and MacDonald has recused himself from presiding over cases when the attorney general’s office was “substantially involved in the case on appeal” during his time in that office.

“For the other cases, Chief Justice MacDonald is not disqualified and is complying with his constitutional duty to hear the appeals,” Harris added.

Another justice, Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi, has recused herself from all the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule cases coming before the court this month based on a situation involving her husband, Geno Marconi, the long-serving director of the New Hampshire Port Authority, who was placed on leave in April for reasons that remain unclear.

Harris said last week that Hantz Marconi recused herself from cases involving the attorney general’s office based on her understanding that the office was advising the Pease Development Authority, which oversees the Port Authority, with respect to her husband’s work.

A spokesperson for the DOJ said the attorney general’s office advises the Division of Ports and Harbors, but will not comment on attorney-client communications, personnel actions, or judicial recusals.

Steven Porter can be reached at steven.porter@globe.com. Follow him @reporterporter.

Source link

New Hampshire

Up to 4 inches of snow expected in NH tonight. See latest forecast

Published

28 minutes ago

March 3, 2026

Press Room

Up to 4 inches of snow expected in NH tonight. See latest forecast

It may be March, but winter in New Hampshire is far from over. Just one week after a blizzard tore through the state with heavy snow and high winds, the state is getting another round of snowfall.

The state will get three to five inches during the evening and night of Tuesday, March 3, says the National Weather Service (NWS) of Gray, Maine. While the accumulation will not be significant, the snowfall may cause dangerous road conditions and a layer of ice on the ground in certain parts of the state.

Here’s what to know before tonight’s snow in New Hampshire, including snow totals and timing.

When will it snow in NH tonight?

According to the NWS, it will start snowing in New Hampshire during mid-afternoon or early evening and continue through the night. Specifically, snow will arrive to the southern part of the state around 2-3 p.m., spreading northwards through the rest of New Hampshire by 5 p.m.

Rain or freezing rain will mix in later this evening across southern New Hampshire, creating a wintry mix. All precipitation should move out of the state by midnight.

Due to the timing of today’s snowfall, the Tuesday evening commute will be affected, with the NWS warning to slow down and exercise caution while driving.

How much snow will NH get tonight?

New Hampshire will get one to four inches of snow tonight, with one to two inches in northern New Hampshire, two to three inches in southern New Hampshire and three to four inches in the center of the state, with the possibility for five inches in localized areas.

In the Seacoast specifically, Portsmouth, Rye, Hampton and York are expected to get between two to three inches of snow, while Dover, Exeter and Rochester may get up to four.

The wintry mix may also cause a light glaze of ice across southern New Hampshire.

NH weather watches and warnings

The NWS has issued a winter weather advisory for the state of New Hampshire, in effect from 1 p.m. on Tuesday, March 3 through 4 a.m. on Wednesday, March 4.

Sign up for weather SMS alerts

Source link

New Hampshire

Bedford man barred from conducting any securities business in New Hampshire

Published

13 hours ago

March 3, 2026

Press Room

Bedford man barred from conducting any securities business in New Hampshire

State

Zip Code

Country

Source link

New Hampshire

New Hampshire employment law in 2026 – NH Business Review

Published

1 day ago

March 2, 2026

Press Room

New Hampshire employment law in 2026 – NH Business Review

What employers are getting wrong, and how to fix it before it becomes a claim

New Hampshire’s employment law landscape heading into 2026 may not be dramatically different from last year, but the real risks lie in implementation missteps. From the initial setting of wages, to calculating and distributing wages, employers will likely find a specific statute and/or labor regulation governing the transaction. Failure to follow these detailed wage and hour laws can result in significant back wages and other penalties being imposed by the state or federal Department of Labor following an audit. Fortunately, however, this area of employment law is relatively easy to master, once you are familiar with the basics.

Notice compliance

One of the most common pitfalls for employers in New Hampshire is misunderstanding the wage and hour notice requirements under RSA 275 and the related New Hampshire Department of Labor Administrative Rules.

At the time of hire, employers must notify employees in writing of their rate of pay and the day and place of payment. This notice is traditionally delivered to employees by way of an offer letter or some sort of “New Hire Rate of Pay” form. (A sample form is available from the New Hampshire Department of Labor website.) What surprises most employers, however, is that Lab. 803.03(f)(6) also requires employers to request and obtain their employees’ signatures on this written notification of wages, and employers must keep a copy of the signed written notification of wages on file. Further, employers must notify employees in writing during the course of employment of any changes to wages or day of pay prior to such changes taking effect, and the employer must obtain the employee’s signature on this subsequent notification as well. (See RSA 275:49; Lab. 803.03.)

Employers are further required to notify employees in writing, or through a posted notice maintained in a place accessible to employees, of:

• employment practices and policies with regard to vacation pay, sick leave and other fringe benefits.

• deductions made from the employee’s payroll check, for each period such deductions are made.

• information regarding the deductions allowed from wage payments under state law. (RSA 275:49; Lab. 803.03.)

Policies regarding vacation and sick leave should inform employees whether or not the employer will “cash out” unused time at year end or at the end of employment, and if so, under what terms. Again, if any changes are made to vacation pay, sick leave and other fringe benefits during the course of employment (all of which are considered “wages” under New Hampshire law), employers must request and obtain their employees’ signatures on the written notification of the change, and must keep a copy of the signed form on file. (Lab. 803.03.) Importantly, notification by way of pay stub alone is not sufficient, and, these requirements apply to both increases and decreases in pay.

Two-hour minimum (reporting pay)

Another frequently overlooked obligation is New Hampshire’s two-hour minimum reporting pay requirement. Under RSA 275:43-a, non-exempt employees who report to work but are sent home early must generally be paid for at least two hours. Weather-related closures, client cancellations or operational slowdown days can trigger this rule. Employers should also note that the New Hampshire Department of Labor currently applies this law to remote-based employees. Consequently, employees who “report to work” at an employer’s request from a home office may likewise have a right to two hours of pay, depending on the circumstances.

Salaried vs. hourly employees

Misclassification of employees as exempt from overtime remains a significant source of compliance exposure. The position’s job duties — not the titles or label such as “salaried” — determine whether an employee qualifies for an overtime exemption.

Employers, particularly in nonprofits, health care and small businesses, unintentionally misapply exempt classifications to roles such as administrative staff, office managers, executive assistants, program coordinators or hybrid jobs that involve significant non-exempt tasks. Over time, as organizational needs evolve and employees take on broader responsibilities, job duties can drift outside of an exemption’s scope.

Best practice is to periodically review job descriptions and actual job duties to ensure continued compliance with exemption criteria, particularly following any significant restructuring or job redesigns.

Peg O’Brien is chair of McLane Middleton’s Employment Law Practice Group. She can be reached at margaret.o’brien@mclane.com.

Source link