NORTH HAVERHILL -– The American Civil Liberties Union asked state officials to investigate an attempt by Grafton County Attorney {span}Martha Hornick {/span}to remove a police officer from a confidential list of officers with credibility issues.

Gilles Bissonnette, the ACLU’s legal director, said he would like the attorney general to look at a civil case in Grafton County court, which only lists the name of the officer as “AB.”

In the case, AB, who admitted to lying in a report about displaying his or her weapon during a 2007 incident in Haverhill, asked to be removed from the list.

According to court records, the officer later confessed but was cleared in a departmental investigation.

AB argued that their desire to continue working and chances for professional advancement within law enforcement were hampered by being on the list.

Court documents filed by an attorney representing Grafton County said they do not have any discretion to remove the officer from the list.

Nonetheless, both parties have asked a court to expunge the record.

The parties said that AB “has paid a steep penalty for AB’s lapse in judgment,” adding that “AB’s previous misjudgment is by now so remote and isolated in time that it relates more to the mistakes made by a naïve, inexperienced, or poorly trained officer rather than to malfeasance, deception or deliberate misconduct….”

An attorney for the officer said the officer was transporting a prisoner when “a series of events unfolded” in which the officer felt threatened, and the officer drew his or her service weapon.

AB did not fire the weapon and no one was injured, but after discussing what happened with another officer — specifically, what prompted AB to draw his or her weapon — AB “documented the event inaccurately,” but the factual content of the report was never challenged, according to the officer’s lawyer.

In September 2011, AB self-reported the inaccuracy of his or her report to the police chief, who launched an internal investigation. The chief’s report confirmed the facts of the incident and concluded AB’s conduct was justified, according to court records.

As a result of the investigation, AB was never “disciplined, suspended nor terminated,” the officer’s lawyer said.

A hearing was held March 4, but no order had been issued as of Tuesday morning.

In a statement released Tuesday evening, Senior Assistant Attorney General Geoffrey Ward noted the AG’s office maintains the list and has an established protocol for removing an officer’s name.

“If and when a formal request to remove an officer’s name is made, we review that request based on this protocol,” Ward said. “The protocol clearly states that removal of an officer’s name may only occur if there is an order or other determination which overturns the disciplinary finding which had caused the officer to be added.”

The statement concludes: “The Grafton County Attorney’s actions in entering a stipulation agreeing to remove Officer AB’s name from the EES did not conform with this protocol.

“Moreover, in any matter, whether or not an officer’s name appears on the EES (list), prosecutors nevertheless have an affirmative duty to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence which is contained in an officer’s personnel file under the Brady and Laurie cases.”

Bissonnette said removing the officer from the list “will make it harder for prosecutors to make appropriate disclosures to defendants in future cases in which Officer AB is a testifying witness.”

The ACLU, along with the Union Leader and other media outlets, have recently sued the state to release the list of officers with potential credibility or other issues. The court case is ongoing.

“The public should know why an officer goes on the (list),” Bissonnette said, “and why the officer goes off.”