The conclusion reached by the New Hampshire Attorney General’s office that three allegations against former New London Police Chief David Seastrand did not rise to the level of criminal conduct raises some troubling questions.

Seastrand resigned in disgrace earlier this year after a female student at Colby-Sawyer College in New London claimed that Seastrand offered to drop charges against her – underage drinking and giving police a false name – if the young woman agreed to let the police chief photograph her in the nude.

She filed a complaint with the AG’s office. Within about a month, Seastrand resigned his job and gave up his certification as a police officer, but no charges were filed against him.

As a result of the publicity from that case, though, three other women came forward and made complaints against Seastrand.

One alleged that she had sex with Seastrand while he was working as police chief; a second claimed Seastrand paid her speeding ticket after she agreed to pose for some photos wearing lingerie; and a third claimed she refused Seastrand’s offer for cash if she posed nude for him.

In announcing that no charges would be filed against Seastrand, the statement from the attorney general’s office said that “each of the alleged instances involved actions by Seastrand in his personal capacity, and did not purport to be acts of his office.”

That’s probably not the way the public sees it.

There is much that has not been made public about the allegations, but based on what is known, the claim that Seastrand acted in anything other than his official capacity strains the bounds of credibility.

We wonder whether the women who complained thought Seastrand was acting outside the scope of his office, and how they feel about the decision not to charge him. It seems doubtful that they would have gone to the AG’s office in the first place unless they were under the impression that he was acting in some official capacity.

Yet, there were four allegations brought by four different women, and a whole building full of lawyers in Concord couldn’t find a single charge to bring?

Amazing.

The AG’s office called Seastrand’s actions “disturbing.”

We would use the same term to describe the AG’s decision, and ask whether Seastrand received preferential treatment because he was once a police officer.

The allegations brought by the women suggest that Seastrand either abused his position or sought to. If there is no law prohibiting such conduct, there ought to be. If there is, then the decision not to charge the former chief suggests that using your position to seek sexual gratification is not a crime in the state if you wear a uniform.

We suspect that, somewhere in the chain of command, somebody decided that losing his job, his prestige and his police certification should be punishment enough for Seastrand, and there was no need to go to court and rile up the police community that the AG’s office often depends on to do investigations.

We wonder, though: can anybody apply for that particular brand of justice, or is it only available to members of law enforcement?

The AG’s decision also sends a scary message to young women in the state: You may be fair game for exploitation by unscrupulous police officers who choose to abuse their positions of authority. The protection you can expect from the state depends entirely on the circumstances.

That, at least, is the way it looks.

That’s the kind of thing that should trouble all police officers who care about the honor of the badges they wear.

Newsletter