Innocent until proven guilty? Hold police to a higher standard

By GLYNIS HART
Do police officers have an enhanced right to privacy? That’s the question the state Attorney General Gordon MacDonald and the American Civil Liberties Union are battling about this week, with the AG’s office fighting to keep the names of police officers accused of misconduct confidential. 

The ACLU argues that the practice violates Laurie’s Law, a precedent established in 1995 in The State of New Hampshire v. Carl Laurie. In that case, the state Supreme Court found that Laurie was denied due process of law, because one of the witnesses against him, Franklin police officer Steve Laro, had numerous items in his personnel file indicating he was not a credible witness. Laro had been previously employed by the police department in Boxford, Massa-chusetts, where he was suspended twice and sent to a psychologist. When he applied for a job with NH State Police, a trooper called Boxford and was told Laro had a personnel file full of letters of complaint. Laro, however, told the Franklin Police Depart-ment his record was clean. 

Carl Laurie was accused of murder, and Officer Laro claimed he heard Laurie confess. 

The court found that when the state withheld the information about Officer Laro in his personnel file, it violated Laurie’s right to a fair defense. (Laurie was acquitted of the murder, but jailed on another offense.) 

The Laurie List, formally called the Exculpatory Evidence List, is supposed to be shared with defendants when it contains evidence that might affect their case. However, the list has been controversial, with several rule changes over the years. In other states that keep such lists, they are called Brady lists or Liars lists. 

Six news organizations have joined the ACLU in a lawsuit to make the list open to the public. At present, what’s available is heavily redacted, with the officers’ names blacked out. The ACLU and others argue that there is no way to know whether prosecutors are sharing exculpatory evidence, since defense attorneys never see it. They further argue that it’s unreasonable to expect officers with a truth-telling problem to provide evidence against themselves. 

Last week, MacDonald’s office filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that opening the list violates police officers’ right to privacy. Supporters of keeping the Laurie List private argue that being on the list puts a police officer’s livelihood at risk, and seek to apply the standard of “innocent until proven guilty.” 

Locally, the case touches on the conduct of former Claremont police officer Ian Kibbe, who is fighting criminal charges that he made false statements, altered a crime scene, and committed perjury.  

Kibbe is due in court in December, but in the meantime any cases that turned on his word have been placed in doubt. This also brings into question the death of Cody Lafont, a young man whom Kibbe shot in the doorway of his home: the next officer on the scene found the dying Lafont with an empty revolver next to his body. Kibbe reported Lafont brandished the gun at him and Kibbe shot him three times in self-defense. There were no witnesses. An investigation concluded there was no wrongdoing.

But “innocent until proven guilty” is the wrong standard to apply to a police officer who may have falsified a report or planted evidence. 

While the presumption of innocence is enshrined in our nation’s law, it’s also enshrined in the law to require more proof when the stakes are higher, and less proof when the stakes are lower. For example, in civil court, where the loser is found “at fault” rather than “guilty”, the penalty is generally in dollars, or a change in policy. On the other end of the spectrum, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges requires judges to avoid “the appearance of impropriety” to preserve the reputation of the court. Judges, who represent the law itself, are required to not behave in a way that could cast suspicion on the fairness of the law. 

Police officers, like judges, are the face of the law, and the arm of the law that most people see on a regular basis. Their word can send people to prison, and their judgment in a critical situation can mean life or death, as it did for Cody Lafont. Therefore, police should be held to a higher standard to preserve the integrity of their office and the trust of the public, not a lower one that applies to criminal defendants.

 

Glynis Hart is a staff reporter at the Eagle Times, covering the New Hampshire portion of our coverage area.