New Hampshire State Police Secrecy Over Sexual Harassment Allegations Leads To Lawsuit

By ZACH LAIRD, InDepth NH

The State is continuing to stay quiet on allegations of sexual harassment by a State Police Sergeant in 2021, and completely redacted the report when journalist Damien Fisher sought the document, according to a new lawsuit.

Fisher submitted a written request — under RSA chapter 91-A — by electronic mail to the Department of Administrative Services on March 30, 2026, in search of a “copy of the 2021 Division of Personnel investigative report into allegations of sexual harassment against State Trooper Justin Rowe.” Eighty-seven days later, the department produced a 27-page document with everything of substance redacted, after “balancing the privacy interests against the public interest in keeping with specific guidance from the Attorney General’s office,” and cited no exemption. The Department did not dispute that it had received the complaint.

Fisher is being represented by attorney Tony Soltani in the lawsuit filed in Merrimack Superior Court in Concord. Soltani said that, as an attorney, the silence is an issue that he’s never run into before in New Hampshire.

“It’s a little embarrassing, because we’ve tried in New Hampshire to improve public access over the years, and the Supreme Court has said it over and over again; that you’re supposed to — as government officials — help people gain access to documents. They have said it again and again, that there are no blanket exemptions or blanket denials, that’s just illegal, you can’t do that. You’ve got to be more specific about why you’re denying access or denying disclosure based on what exemption of the law,” Soltani said.

The State Police department deferred questions on the matter to Michael Garrity, spokesman for the New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General. Garrity said: “We have not received the complaint. Once received, we will review it and respond in court as appropriate in due course.”

Soltani continued that he tried working with government officials, who told him they would respond to him, but instead “they fell off the face of the Earth,” a move he called unprofessional.

He said he was surprised — and is still very surprised — because “this is not how the State does business; this is not how the Attorney General is supposed to do business.” Soltani added it’s unprofessional to drag a reporter along that many days, and also miss the department’s own self-imposed deadlines (and) “ghost the lawyer for the reporter; that’s just really bad service.”

Sgt. Justin Rowe was serving as an internal affairs investigator for the New Hampshire State Police Professional Standards Unit when a trooper he was investigating, fired Trooper Haden Wilber, reported Rowe in 2021 for sexual harassment.

The allegations were made against Rowe while he was investigating now-former Trooper Haden Wilber, who was fired in August 2021 following the illegal search of a Maine woman. It resulted in the state agreeing to pay a $215,000 settlement in order to get her lawsuit dismissed.

Wilber alleged that Rowe told a female employee in the Gun Line Unit she looked sexy when she smokes, that he wanted to see the tattoos she had on her body, and that he was a “Christian Grey looking for an Anastasia Steele.” The two people he referred to were the main characters in the “50 Shades of Grey” novels about a sadomasochistic sexual romance.

Later, in 2021, it was announced that Rowe would be leaving the Professional Standards Unit for a position in the Major Crimes Unit (MCU). The MCU investigates homicides and works closely with the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office.

Per the complaint, where a public agency claims that disclosure would constitute an invasion of privacy under RSA 91-A:5, IV, the court applies a three-step analysis: whether disclosure would implicate a privacy interest; whether there is a public interest in disclosure, measured by whether the record would inform the public about the conduct and activities of its government; and, if both are present, whether the public interest outweighs the privacy interest.

Soltani is arguing that the report, which would cover an internal investigation into alleged misconduct by Rowe, is subject to that balancing analysis and is not withheld categorically.

By April 20, 2026, the Department had located the responsive record, and the additional 30 days it gave itself to respond expired around May 20. It wasn’t until June 18 when the Department communicated that: “Please find the department’s response attached. Certain portions have been redacted after balancing the privacy interests against the public interest in keeping with specific guidance from the Attorney General’s office.”

Though the response did not identify any exemptions under RSA 91-A:5. Nor did it identify whose privacy interest it was protecting (or) explain how any exemption applied to any particular page, paragraph, or line withheld.

The Department also withheld critical information regarding the summary and amount of the complaints, the witnesses interviewed, evidence gathered, as well as the findings to whether the sexual harassment policy was violated.

Soltani noted after he sent the Department three follow-up emails that they didn’t acknowledge them — with one of the emails asking the Department to confirm that it received his correspondence.

He said there are several remedies that he’s seeking from the Department by the courts. The first is for the Department to disclose the material (and) list any exemptions properly. He said another would be for a judge to resolve any disputes over the Department attempting to refrain from disclosing a witnesses’ identity if Soltani disagrees with the move.

He said he’s also looking for the court to grant the following:

• Declare that records pertaining to internal personnel practices, and investigative reports concerning alleged misconduct by sworn law enforcement officers, are not categorically exempt from disclosure under RSA 91-A:5, IV;
• Enjoin the Department from further withholding the requested record except to the extent this Court determines, passage by passage, that a specific exemption applies;
• Enjoin future violations of RSA chapter 91-A by the Department pursuant to RSA 91-A:8,V, and order the officials responsible for the response at issue to undergo appropriate remedial training at their own expense;
• Award the plaintiff his reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to RSA 91-A:8, I;
• Impose a civil penalty of not less than $250 and not more than $2,000 pursuant to RSA 91-A:8, IV against any officer, employee, or official found to have violated RSA chapter 91-A in bad faith; and grant such other and further relief as justice may require.

This story was originally published by InDepth NH.