Corrections Department Ordered To Take Back Guard Nabbed in Hunting Probe

Corrections Officer Sgt. Gerald Williams learned that simply being accused of a crime is enough to get you fired from your job, even if the accusation never turns into a conviction.

And the Department of Corrections should have learned terminations based on questionable accusations that have nothing to do with the corrections system are likely to get overturned by the New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board.

The board recently ruled that the DOC must undo Williams’ firing and give him more than a year’s retroactive back pay. Among the many issues the PAB took with the DOC’s handling of the case is the fact none of Williams’ alleged misconduct violates any DOC employee rule.

“None of [Williams’] conduct used to support his termination relates to any actions and behavior within the [Department of Corrections] facilities or in conjunction with his work duties,” the PAB ruled.

Williams was put on unpaid leave in March of 2023, and then fired in May of that year without any crime or DOC violation having been proven. In fact, Williams wasn’t even criminally charged until September of last year, months after he was fired.

Williams is one of several DOC officers accused of illegal hunting in a case that was investigated last year. Williams was charged with several wildlife violations and one misdemeanor for obstructing justice, but that charge was dismissed with prejudice.

In February of this year, Williams did plead no contest to two violation-level trapping offenses for allegedly trapping coyotes on his property out of season, but violations are not considered crimes.

According to a statement of facts filed with the PAB by Williams’ attorney, Gary Snyder, the veteran corrections officer keeps chickens on his property and claimed he was protecting his livestock with the traps. Rather than dispute the case further, he opted to plead no contest to the violations and pay the fines, according to Snyder.

What started the whole saga was the search warrant executed at his Canterbury home in March of 2023 by Fish and Game Sgt. Geoffrey Pushee. Pushee was there to seize Williams’ cell phone and to search the home for evidence of illegal hunting conducted by a circle of DOC officers.

There was no evidence in the home linking Williams to the illegal hunting, but the cell phone became the smoking gun for DOC. Williams owns several Apple devices, including multiple iPhones, all connected to the same account and all sharing the same data, according to records in this case. Williams reportedly handed Pushee the first iPhone he had on him to comply with the warrant.

But Pushee claims the iPhone Williams handed over was a dummy meant to evade the warrant. Pushee states in his report that the phone displayed a “no sim” message, meaning it did not have service. Pushee called Williams’ cell phone number and the iPhone in his hand did not ring. Instead, the call went to another iPhone Williams had in a lock box, according to Pushee.

Williams claims he operated the iPhone Pushee first took in his home using his home WiFi. As it was connected to the same iCloud account, that phone had all the information any other phone contained. Further, Williams would later tell DOC officials his phones do not show Pushee called in the timeframe of the search, though that is disputed.

The DOC decided the cell phone snafu showed Williams was being dishonest with Pushee and used that as the pretext for the termination, according to the records. The PAB’s ruling states the evidence for Pushee’s cell phone allegations were never proved, and in fact were the basis for the misdemeanor charge getting thrown out of court with prejudice.

Even if true, the cell phone incident and the alleged illegal hunting have nothing to do with Williams’ job as a corrections officer, according to the PAB.

“Even if either had been proven, that would not have been sufficient to support the DOC’s decision to terminate [Williams.] None of the Williams’ conduct used to support his termination relates to any actions and behavior within the DOC facilities or in conjunction with his work duties,” the PAB ruled.

The DOC did not conduct an independent investigation into the allegations, but instead relied solely on Sgt. Pushee’s report. The Department claimed in its termination letter to Williams he was being fired for violating DOC policy and being convicted of a crime. Again, the DOC has no policies on hunting, and Williams was never convicted of any crime. When he was fired by the DOC, he had not even been charged.

When asked, the DOC reiterated that Pushee accused Williams of lying, even though Pushee’s account resulted in the obstruction of justice charge melting under scrutiny. More curious is the DOC’s belief, against all legal logic, that a nolo contendere, or no contest, plea to a violation means Williams might be guilty of a crime.

“Mr. Williams entered a plea of nolo contendere, which means he did not admit guilt or innocence, leaving open the possibility that the criminal conduct may have occurred,” a DOC representative said in a written statement.

Under New Hampshire law, violations are less serious offenses, like minor traffic tickets, that are not considered crimes. Typically, violations are punished with fines, but never jail time. Even guilty findings in violation-level cases do not get reported on a person’s criminal record, and such findings are not supposed to carry any lasting impact.

Nolo contendere, or no contest pleas, are for defendants who maintain their innocence while acknowledging they do not wish to fight their charges. Nolo pleas are not considered admissions of guilt under New Hampshire law.