Supreme Court Case Supreme Court Decision in Research Paper

Supreme Court Case

Supreme Court Decision in Re Waterman, 910 2D (N.H. 2006)

The Case

The case addressed in this section of the report is that of Supreme Court case In Re Waterman, 910 A.2d 1175 (N.H. 2006). In this case, Tracy Waterman, working as a trooper for the New Hampshire State Policy was informed on August 29, 3003 that Vicky Lemere, the wife of one of Waterman's fellow troopers, informed Lieutenant Nedeau, one of Waterman's supervisors, that Waterman made threatening remarks about her supervising officers. Lamere alleged that Waterman stated she would 'like to put a bullet in Lieutenant Nedeau's head' and would 'like to deck Sergeant McCormack' if they yelled at her." (Webster, 2007, p.1)

Facts of the Case

Webster's report on this case states that an internal investigation was initiated by the State Police (Division) in which a number of witnesses were interviewed "including Lamere and Waterman." (Webster, 2007, p.1) It is reported that during the investigation that Waterman denied having made the threats. Since the investigators found Lemere to be more believable than Waterman, it was suggested that Waterman be subjected to a polygraph examination. This examination was authorized by the Division Director, Colonel Gary Sloper. It is reported by Webster that Waterman accompanied by her attorney arrived for the polygraph examination but refused to take the test.

III. Submit to the Test or Be Terminated

The investigating officer then informed Waterman that refusal to take the polygraph examination constituted the violation of a direct order and that Waterman could be disciplined "up to and including dismissal." (Webster, 2007, p.1) Waterman received a memo from Sloper stating his intention to dismiss her for "willful insubordination for failing to take the polygraph examination." (Webster, 2007, p.1) Waterman and her attorney attended a meeting with Sloper on the 23rd of September and was dismissed on the 24th of September. The termination was appealed by Waterman to the Personnel Appeals Board (PAB).

IV. Appeals Board Hearing

It is reported that Waterman "During the PAB hearing…acknowledged that the Division's professional conduct standards authorize the use of polygraph examinations in internal investigations. She also acknowledged that she had refused her supervisor's order and that she was advised in the presence of counsel that her refusal could result in dismissal" (Webster, 2007, p.1) Findings of the PAB state "…under the Division's professional standards of conduct, an employee is willfully insubordinate when he or she "deliberately and/or intentionally disobeys a lawful order." (Webster, 2007, p.1) The argument of Waterman was that she was "not willfully insubordinate because the order was unlawful because polygraphs are unreliable, degrading and the results are inadmissible in a court proceeding. Additionally, she urged that the order to take the polygraph was retaliatory." (Webster, 2007, p.1) The dismissal of Waterman was affirmed by the PAB and once again, Waterman appealed the PAB's decision.

V. Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court held that police officer must be above suspicion of violation of the laws that he is sworn to enforce...and must perform his duty to investigate crime…