PORTSMOUTH � The state's position, that a list of police officers with potential credibility problems should be private, "protects police officers who have done bad things."

That argument is one of many cited in a new court filing for a lawsuit seeking public disclosure of the named officers on a list formerly known as the Laurie List, now called the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule (EES). The list currently has the names of 252 officers from across the state, for reasons that can include lying, falsification of records or evidence, excessive use of force and/or criminal conduct.

Seeking public disclosure of the list, through a Hillsborough County Superior Court lawsuit, is ACLU NH attorney Gilles Bissonnette, on behalf of Seacoast Media Group and five other media outlets. Senior Assistant Attorney General Francis Fredericks filed a Dec. 21 motion to dismiss the suit�arguing the law allows the list to be confidential and calling it a �reasonable restriction� on public access to government records.

In reply, Bissonnette on Monday filed a sur-reply noting the state does not dispute the list is not for human resource purposes, and therefore cannot be kept confidential as a personnel record. He argues the state does not dispute that disclosure of the list will inform the public of police misconduct, or that the state's "policy of secrecy" protects officers who engage in criminal or other concerning conduct.

The sur-reply further contends the state doesn't deny the list gives police officers special protections not afforded other government employees. Bissonnette in the filing also contends a cover letter, with a redacted list, includes evidence that the named officers had been afforded due process before being named on the list.

He argues the state has not presented evidence to support its argument that disclosing the list "could chill police chiefs" from naming officers to the list. Lastly, the ACLU lawyer wrote the addition of 78 to 86 new officers to the list, during the past six months, "only enhances the critical public interest in disclosure."

"The public is not required to simply take the (state) and the police at their word that 'all is well,'" the new court filing argues. "Under (the Right to Know law), the presumption is that government best functions when it is transparent."

The attorney general's office has argued information about officers on the list is protected under law drafted by the Legislature that says officers� disciplinary records can only be disclosed to a criminal defendant under narrow circumstances.



�So strong was the Legislature�s concern about police personnel file confidentiality that it built into the statute an in camera review process (review by a judge), so that, in questionable cases, the court may review the records and determine what, if any information will be disclosed,� the state contends.

Bissonnette's latest court filing in the case means briefing from both sides is complete, he said. The next step, he said, will be for the court to schedule oral arguments.