NORTH HAVERHILL — An attorney for a New Hampshire police officer who wants his name removed from a list of officers with misconduct or credibility issues objected on Monday to the state American Civil Liberties Union interjecting in a civil case between the officer and the Grafton County Attorney’s Office.

The officer, who is only identified as “AB” in court filings, filed a pleading in Grafton Superior Court in late 2018 asking a judge to have the Grafton County Attorney remove his or her name from the Exculpatory Evidence Schedule, also known as the Laurie List.

The officer was placed on the list following a 2007 incident in Haverhill where there were allegations of a falsified a police report and false testimony, according to court documents.

Grafton County Attorney Marcie Hornick agreed in late February to remove the officer from the Laurie List.

However, two weeks later, on March 13, Hornick rescinded her decision, saying she had lacked authority to take such an action.

The next day, the ACLU filed a motion to become a party to the case, arguing that Hornick has no legal authority to remove the officer and the advocacy group needs to help protect criminal defendants’ rights because no one else is.

That same day, the officer, through attorney Gabriel Nizetic, of Plymouth, N.H., objected to Hornick’s position that she couldn’t enter into an agreement to remove the officer’s name.

“This action is a civil action and therefore the (Grafton County Attorney) has the authority as the attorney for Grafton County to appear and defend cases,” Nizetic wrote in his March 14 filing.

Meanwhile, state Assistant Attorney General Geoff Ward has said county attorneys do not have the authority to remove an officer’s name from the list.

In yet another recent development in the case, Nizetic on Monday filed an objection to the ACLU’s motion to intervene, saying, in part, that the agency “has no legitimate grounds to make arguments on behalf of the respondent … or to barge into a matter in which it has no stake.”

“(The) ACLU has no standing to intervene,” Nizetic wrote. “It has nothing to gain or lose based on the results, and has no recognizable or defined stake in this litigation.”

The ACLU disagreed in both its initial March 14 pleading, as well as in a response filed on Wednesday to the officer’s objection to the ACLU stepping in.

The organization represents the due process rights of defendants, it wrote, including those who could be impacted by the improper removal of an officer from the EES, according to attorneys Gilles Bissonnette and Henry Klementowicz.

“Given the decision of Officer AB and the Grafton County Attorney’s Office to initially agree to an inappropriate stipulation removing Officer AB from the EES list, it is apparent that no party exists in this case with the incentive to zealously advocate for the due process rights of criminal defendants,” they wrote in the motion filed on Wednesday.

Furthermore, the ACLU wrote, if the Union Leader hadn’t written about the case earlier this month, the interworkings of this case may never have been exposed.

The intended purpose of the EES is to make sure prosecutors know what officers have truthfulness or credibility issues, so they can make defendant’s aware of that, as defendants are entitled to all evidence that is exculpatory.

The ACLU also is currently a part of a lawsuit against the state, as are several media organizations, including the Valley News, who contend the names on the list should be public and are subject to release under the state’s Right-to-Know law.

Because the list is secret, the identity of the officer isn’t clear, nor is the agency the officer worked or works for.

However, in the summer of 2007 in Haverhill, the officer was transporting a prisoner when the officer drew his or her weapon at the suspect; no one was injured, according to the officer’s initial petition filed in court in December.

A Haverhill officer arrived on scene and later talked to the officer in question about why he or she drew the weapon, in which the Haverhill officer “insinuated” that the prisoner “ ‘must have had his hand in his pocket, right?’ in (an) effort to justify (the officer’s) use of force.”

The officer, who was new to the job at the time, “erroneously” thought the only way he or she could draw the weapon at the time was if the prisoner had his hands in his pocket, the filing states. The officer, who is currently still working in law enforcement, then documented what happened “inaccurately” and provided false testimony, according to the petition. The officer self-reported what happened in 2011, the document states.

The officer seeks to be removed from the EES because the incident is “stale and of no further relevance,” violates his rights and because he has suffered damages, among other things, the petition states.

The EES states that an officer can only be removed from the list when the “sustained findings” of wrongdoing are overturned, according to a Attorney General’s Office memo issued in April 2018.

Jordan Cuddemi can be reached at jcuddemi@vnews.com or 603-727-3248.