Perkins argues his freedom of speech rights were denied

LACONIA — The lawyer for the former Belknap County Sheriff’s Department chief deputy is arguing that the denial of his client's free speech rights provide a legitimate grounds for his lawsuit.

David Perkins is alleging that he was forced out of his position last year for political reasons. He has filed suit against Belknap County, and Michael Moyer, who was sheriff at the time.

The county and Moyer have asked that the suit be dismissed.

The county argues that it has no authority over personnel matters in the Sheriff’s Department, and further because courts have ruled deputy sheriffs can be disciplined or dismissed for political disloyalty.

In a response to the county’s dismissal request, Perkins’ attorney, Benjamin Folsom, argues that rulings by the New Hampshire Supreme Court are based on an interpretation of a state law which “provides broader protections to public employees than does federal law” cited by the county in its motion.

“Based on the plain language of the statute, the Supreme Court found that it protects ‘expression on all matters relating to the public employer and its policies except for matters that are confidential or privileged in nature,’” Folsom states in the motion filed on Jan. 19.

The case was filed last October in Belknap Superior Court, but has since been transferred to Carroll Superior Court because Judge James D. O’Neill III, the sitting judge in the Belknap Superior Court, has a conflict of interest, according to an order signed by Superior Court Chief Justice Tina Nadeau.

Perkins retired after being suspended with pay for six months following three personnel investigations, all without any public explanation.

Perkins' suit alleges that the investigations were a form of retaliation by Moyer against Perkins because the latter wanted to run for sheriff against then-Sheriff’s Department Sgt. William Wright, who was elected sheriff in November. 

Moyer denies the retaliation claim, according to court records.

In his legal response to Perkins’s suit, Moyer states he was never told by Perkins that he planned to run for sheriff.

Through his attorney, Donna Feeney, Moyer either denies the allegations contained in Perkins’s suit, or says that he has no knowledge of the substance of the allegations and therefore is unable to either confirm or deny them. The rebuttal further states that Perkins “suffered no damages” due to Moyer’s actions.

Moyer is asking that court to dismiss the suit once and for all, and further order that Perkins pay Moyer’s legal fees.

The investigations into Perkins’s conduct came after he raised questions about the integrity of the Sheriff's Department's Drug Task Force, which Wright headed. Perkins alleges he was the target of harassment and retaliation by the Sheriff's Department.

“The legislature wanted to ensure that inviolate right (of free speech) was protected for public employees, including in the face of federal case law that restricted public employees’ freedom of speech, and did so in passing (the state’s public officer and employee freedom of expression law),” Perkins’s motion reads

In a separate motion Perkins’s attorney states that the county is still liable for a sheriff’s actions even though the sheriff is an elected official.

“The county exercises control over the sheriff through the budget and … the county and Sheriff’s Department are inextricably intertwined in their handling of deputy sheriffs, and Mr. Perkins in particular,” the motion reads.