Was he a good cop or protected by 'thin blue line'?

Correia's atty. says client took fall for Iwans

When the Board of Selectmen dismissed former police lieutenant Ed Correia in March, the selectmen were not really seeing Correia, according to his attorney. They were looking at a “vision” of former police chief Kevin Iwans, Correia’s former boss for whom the members felt a great deal of anger and frustration.

On the other hand, the attorney representing the town in its dispute with Correia says the only reason he has no record of disciplinary actions against him during his tenure at the local police department is because a “thin blue line” of mutual protection existed among the local police officers at that time — so residents were “intimidated” into not reporting Correia.

Both dramatic statements were made in Belknap County Superior Court yesterday as Judge Lawrence Smukler heard oral arguments from both sides of the controversial issue. Correia was fired by the Selectboard in a 2-1 vote after it ruled the officer had failed to report inappropriate behavior by his superior officers, accepted higher-paying “duty work” when he was supposed to be serving as the town’s School Resource Officer, and violated state statutes by not exhibiting “good behavior”.

Correia has appealed the decision, claiming his firing was “unjust, unreason and unlawful” under the law. He’s asking the court to either have the town appoint another review board to evaluate his case, or reverse the selectmen’s decision and reinstate him.

At yesterday’s hearing, attorney George Wattendorf of Dover, who is representing Correia, said the three selectmen who ruled on his client should have disqualified themselves before they began because they’d previously taken part in conversations about Iwans and Correia. He told the judge the board members should be held to the “juror’s standard” of having no prior knowledge of the situation, and reported suggesting the selectmen at the time of the three-day disciplinary hearing that they choose another administrative board – such as one appointed by the court — to hear Correia’s case.

Wattendorf also said there were fundamental issues of fairness that were not adhered to at his clients hearing.

One was that Town Counsel James Sessler, who was named by the town as a co-investigator into charges of misconduct on the part of Correia, Iwans and another officer, also served as the hearings officer at Correia’s disciplinary hearing. In that role, Sessler advised the selectmen on legal issues and once even “testified” about the case, Wattendorf said. “Both (actions) were inappropriate” under state statutes, the lawyer said.

Wattendorf also claimed the state’s Right-to-Know law was violated because the hearing was held in the Town Hall meeting room, a space that excluded some residents from attending. He said there were other larger meeting spaces in town that could have been used.

In addition, the attorney said that during the “discovery” portion of the hearing — when the lawyers on both sides share information that may be used during the proceedings — he was not allowed to look at some documents because they contained information given by juveniles. However at the hearings, Melissa Guldbrandsen, who presented the town’s case, called the juveniles’ parents and other adults who testified to the same issues the young people would have.

Finally, Wattendorf argued the board overreacted to the evidence when it voted to fire Correia. He noted that very few cases of police officers being fired had ever gone to court in New Hampshire but said the ones the court supported involved significant issues such as disobeying a direct command from a superior.

“Ed Correia was never ‘written up’ in more than 20 years as a police officer. He’s a good police officer,” the attorney said. “He was unwarned (that he was acting inappropriately), not suspended, not talked to about it (his behavior).”

As proof that his client’s firing had more to do with the board’s anger at Iwans than with Correia’s actions, Wattendorf pointed to the record of remarks made on the day the board voted to dismiss the lieutenant. “They (the board members) referred back to chief for all of the charges. It was their anger and frustration at the police chief. Only (selectman Alan) Sherwood, he was the only one who was going to follow the law about this decision.” (Sherwood voted to demote Correia instead of firing him.)

Charles (Charlie) P. Bauer of Ransmier & Spellman of Concord, the attorney representing the town in the current case, refuted Wattendorf’s claims.

He began by saying that the selectmen were acting within state statute regulations when they voted to fire Correia and there was no need to appoint another board to review the case.

Bauer then said the selectmen were acting in their roles as town administrator when they released Correia and the court has no jurisdiction over it in those situations. “The court is not in a position to impose into judicial standards,” he told Smuckler.

The judge said he has the discretion to decide whether the Selectboard acted in a judicial or an administrative capacity when they fired Correia. He said if he ruled it was within its rights, he would let the decision to fie Correia stand even if he didn’t think it was fair.

The attorney also refuted the Right-to-Know claim against the town leaders, indicating they had done all that was reasonable. “I’m sure there have been times this courtroom has been filled,” Bauer told the judge.

As for Correia’s unblemished record, Bauer said that was because of a “thin blue line” that made residents too intimidated to speak out against the police officer.

Wattendorf said there was no evidence in the hearing record — such as a statement from a witness — to support such a claim.

But Bauer said it was clear from reading about Correia’s interaction with some residents that his demeanor was inappropriate. He said his language was sometimes rude and abusive, that he’d made rude comments about people with learning problems and disabilities, and exhibited inappropriately aggressive behavior towards both adults and children — threatening youngsters with detention if they did not supply him with information he wanted and, in at least one case, threatening to remove the license plates from cars in a family’s driveway.

As for Town Counselor Sessler’s role, the town’s attorney said there was no evidence that Sessler had acted inappropriately or tried to influence the selectmen’s decision on Correia.

But it was plain that Judge Smukler had concerns about Sessler’s participation. Several times while questioning the attorneys, he mentioned the town counsel’s “co-mingling” roles at Correia’s disciplinary hearing.

Yesterday’s oral arguments hearing lasted about one hour. The judge did not indicate when he would issue a ruling on the case.