The Laurie List, a list of police officers with misconduct, has been publicized and updated, showing new additions and confusing subtractions, leaving the public wondering if we are being given the whole picture.
The Exculpatory Evidence Schedule (EES), also known as the Laurie List, is a list of New Hampshire police officers who have participated in misconduct that hurt their credibility and trustworthiness. The typical cause of being put on the Laurie List is for deliberate dishonesty or excessive force while performing their duties, or those who have been convicted of certain criminal charges.
It contains the officers’ names, their reporting department, the date of the incident and notification of said incident, along with the category and reason(s) for being redacted. This list was once kept secret, its only use being to disclose defense attorneys of criminals in court to try and win their case.
It made no sense to keep this information from the public, yet even with the list no longer kept private, it remains vague.
In 2022, after much protest from the public, The N.H. Attorney General’s Office took over the management of all the Laurie Lists in the state and compiled them into one master list, which is the one that is available to the public today.
According to the November report, 222 police officers’ names have been made public, an increase from the 218 since the July report, the new four being officers who had pending lawsuits.
One of these officers was former Strafford County Sheriff Mark Brave, who is facing five charges of misconduct. These include two counts of perjury (both Class B felonies) and two counts of false swearing, as well as a charge of unsworn falsification, all Class A misdemeanors that dated back to a little over a year ago.
Once being put onto the list, it is uncommon to be taken off. However, because of the law established when the list was made public, officers were given notice when they were being put on the list and they were allowed to sue to object to the decision.
The list being made public is supposed to bring transparency to the police force, but with the ability to oppose being put on it, it remains favorable toward cops. It is like trying to refuse going to the principal’s office or detention, even though there’s really no chance of escaping it.
Those who file lawsuits are given permission to act without approval for their action in their own case, having the ability to file everything under seal, meaning that the sensitive or confidential information within the case would not be kept on the public record.
This means that an officer can bring whatever evidence they want into court with the option to have it not kept on public record, stripping away even more information from what little is already provided.
Officers who challenge their placement on the EES either get the matter solved through an agreement that sends the problem back to the police department that charged the misconduct in the first place, making it a matter of administrative review, or it can be resolved in court.
Many officers have tried an administrative review instead of bringing the matter to court, but no matter the option, everything about the case is typically kept away from the public until the officer is put on the list, if that is even the result of the case. This almost makes being put on the list a warning rather than a punishment.
When an officer goes to court, they either have their name revealed and put on the list, or their name is kept secret from the public eye and they are kept off of it. Even if an officer wins their case, their name should be revealed so the public knows what that officer has been accused of prior, and so they have access to any of this information in case someone needs to go to court themselves.
The list, although public, is vague on what the officer did to land themself on the list. Although it does state what misconduct got an officer on the list, it is described with the least amount of detail. Some examples of misconduct stated are “untruthfulness” and “criminal conduct,” which do not really provide insight into what happened, making the list a place to find names rather than answers.
To add to the mystery, there are no rules or mechanisms for officers who get removed from the list based on events that happened. How to get off the list is completely unknown, but it seems a few have made their way off of it.
Shawn Seymour, a Newport police officer who was on the July report, is now missing from the November one. There is no answer to why he was taken off, leaving the public with even more questions about how useful and insightful this list really is.
A retired Hanover police officer, John Doe, who forged his doctor’s signature to get higher pay about 20 years ago, was also taken off of the list after an appeal earlier this month. The court said the forgery was too far in the past to be relevant to any current criminal cases and the age of police misconduct should be factored into EES decisions.
Although it did happen a long time ago, there should be no need to take the officer’s name off. If the list is to be a record, then names should stay on there instead of making it seem like it never happened. Once you’re on the list, you should stay on, making the evidence that the EES provides fair to anyone who needs it.
So what is the point of this list if most of it is kept from the public? Sure, it reveals names of officers, but without specifics, it feels like the government is still keeping information from what really happened, as well as the names of those who have been given misconduct when they are not put on the list.
This is a matter that should be talked about, as its unfairness and mystery makes the public wonder if the list is really unbiased toward the officers.
Hayley Doda can be contacted at
hayley@kscequinox.com
