March 25 is two years, four months, and 10 days, or 861 days, since the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its pattern or practice investigation into the Worcester Police Department on Nov. 15, 2022.
March 25 is three months and 16 days, or 106 days, since the DOJ released its report of that investigation on Dec. 9, 2024.
March 25 is three months and 18 days, or 98 days, since the Worcester City Council voted to have five special meetings to discuss and hear community input regarding the DOJ investigation.
I get that government moves slowly, but this is a new level of a total lack of a sense of urgency.
Compounding the insult, the council isn’t even doing what it said it would do. On Dec. 17, the council voted to have five special meetings on the DOJ investigation report. A special meeting doesn’t replace a meeting already scheduled. Mayor Joe Petty said during a recent city council meeting that the councilors’ schedules are too busy and they couldn’t find another appropriate time.
So much for all that recent controversy about showing up to work, but I digress.
The agenda for the March 25 has four items on it. One addresses a future meeting to make up for the meeting they replaced that day. The other three are items that first appeared on the agenda on Dec. 17 and March 4, respectively.
No Report on the Report
I expected, and multiple councilors told me before the city posted the agenda for the March 25 meeting that they expected a report from City Manager Eric Batista on the DOJ report. Yes, a report on the report, the most government phrase possible. That is not on the agenda.
On Dec, 17, the council unanimously approved a motion from Petty to request a report in the next 30 days. Here is that motion:
“Request City Manager provide City Council with a thorough response to the Department of Justice (DOJ)’s Investigation of the Worcester Police Department (WPD) and the City of Worcester, Massachusetts within the next thirty (30) days, if practical, that includes a response to each of the nineteen (19) recommendations provided to the City that notes:
a) whether the city has already addressed the specific recommendation and any pertinent data to support the claim;
b) whether the City believes the recommendation has merit;
c) whether the recommendation is one of policy, practice, or procedure; and
d) how the city plans to address each recommendation.
Further, said response should include any notations if the city believes any of the recommendations do not have merit, or is a miscommunication, with the City’s belief being detailed accordingly.
Further, if the DOJ releases the identities of the officers who allegedly abused their powers and took advantage of vulnerable populations, including those victimized by commercial sex trade and sex workers, said response should include an adequate roadmap for holding WPD officers accountable. Further, said report should include whether the DOJ has any further qualitative or quantitative data concerning their findings. Further, request the City Manager explore the feasibility of including the DOJ Report on the city’s online dashboard, if possible.”
Ninety-eight days later, that report hasn’t materialized.
Police Unions Demand Breaking the Law
In December, the leaders of the two police unions representing those working as police in Worcester petitioned the city council. Council tabled the item for the report on the report meeting. It’s text:
“PETITION of Richard Cipro, Anthony Petrone and Thomas Duffy on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Police Officials Local 504 and New England Police Benevolent Association Local 911 request City Council request City Manager request the Department of Justice release and present in a public forum the full investigatory report, specifically to what the DOJ states are “creditable allegations” of criminal sexual misconduct alleged to be committed by members of the Worcester Police Department. Further, request City Council request City Manager request the Department of Justice include the dates, times and names of all individuals alleged to have committed the stated misconduct and/or potential criminal activity.”
Since that meeting, Cipro and Petrone, the president and vice president of the IBPO Local 504, declined to run for re-election.
The demand for DOJ to “present in a public forum the full investigatory report” is a demand for special treatment. Since the law passed that enabled these investigations became effective, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, often called the “94 Crime Bill,” the DOJ had conducted just under 80 pattern and practice investigations before the investigation in Worcester. The DOJ released the report it will release. That’s it.
No one has claimed that the investigation in Worcester had any discernable differences than the others. If the investigation had been different, the city, the unions, or both would be in court.
How hard and for how long would a member of the Worcester Police Department laugh at you if you were under investigation and you made demands? It’s ludicrous on its face.
City Council should be embarrassed that it tabled this petition, which leaves it appearing on the council’s agenda every week. The demand for “names of all individuals alleged to have committed the stated misconduct” demands the DOJ break the law.
The section of the crime bill that created pattern or practice investigations is just over 200 words. You can find it at the bottom of page 277 of the bill. In US Code, they are:
34 U.S. Code § 12601 – Cause of action
34 U.S. Code § 12602 – Data on use of excessive force
(Note: The provisions related to these investigations have been reclassified in US code, so the citations in the original text of the bill are now incorrect.)
The first section, § 12601, defines it as unlawful for any person “to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers” or other government agencies, “that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
This section also says that the Attorney General “may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.”
Some have promoted a conspiracy theory that the investigation in Worcester was “because Biden.” The investigation requires the approval of the Attorney General, not the president. More importantly, the idea that Biden or former Attorney General Merrick Garland decided to launch a conspiracy against Worcester is just absurd.
In the second section, under § 12602 (b), the law says the following:
“Data acquired under this section shall be used only for research or statistical purposes and may not contain any information that may reveal the identity of the victim or any law enforcement officer.”
The petition asks for something literally illegal. Against the law.
There could be no greater example of how the culture rot inside the police department over decades has led to a sense of entitled superiority over the peasants some of them treat residents as.
Who filed this petition is the only reason it remains on the agenda. Status, not merit, enables access to your government in Worcester.
Councilors may not know the request is against the law. That’s also their own fault. In the city council session that ended at the end of 2023, councilors voted against hiring their own legal counsel. A slim majority prefers to depend on the city solicitor, who does not represent the council. It prioritizes deferring to the city manager rather than represent residents as the legislature of the city.
Seeking Policy without Accountability
The recommendations of the DOJ report largely focus on policy. Stronger policy is good. Policy without accountability fails.
The charter of the City of Worcester, the foundational document of government similar to a constitution, defines two branches of government. The first is an executive branch, led by the city manager, that administers the city government. A legislative branch, which has the exclusive power to create ordinances, local laws, is the city council.
The parts of the DOJ report hardly discussed since its release relate to the Bureau of Professional Standards (BOPS), the internal investigations unit within the police department.
BOPS, under the last two chiefs, spanning 20 years prior to Saucier’s appointment, has largely been an acquittal clearing house. In short, investigators conducted thorough investigations when the chief at the time had a problem with the subject of the investigation. Most others became the subject of an investigation by the Bureau of Professional Acquitals.
From pages 22 and 23 of the DOJ Report:
“WPD’s internal affairs unit, the Bureau of Professional Standards (BOPS), closed some investigations because the complainants were reluctant to speak with investigators. They closed investigations even when the unit could have interviewed officers or civilian witnesses or gathered and analyzed other evidence to determine whether sexual misconduct occurred.
In one example, WPD exceptionally cleared a complaint from a woman who reported that WPD officers sexually assaulted her and engaged in other serious misconduct. The woman, who had previously engaged in the commercial sex trade, told booking officers that WPD officers used excessive force during her arrest. When she reported the force incident, she also alleged that one of the officers who arrested her had sexually “assaulted her in the past. She specifically alleged that she had “sucked his dick” and performed oral sex on other WPD officers. When the BOPS investigator was unable to reach the complainant, BOPS closed the complaint as “exceptionally cleared” instead of interviewing the officers about the complainant’s sexual misconduct allegations.”
The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt applies only to criminal cases where the accused could lose their liberty by incarceration. Internal investigations are not criminal investigations. They do not use the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, but the standard of a prep0nderance of evidence.
More importantly, the point should be to identify individuals who present a danger to public safety by abusing their authority as a law enforcement officer. Instead, BOPS was a tool of the “good ‘ole boy’s network.”
Page 23 of the DOJ report
“In another case, a prosecutor contacted WPD to report that a WPD officer rubbed his pelvis against a female colleague’s shoulder on three occasions on a single day. The officer asked the woman, “Does that bother you?” The victim told the officer it did. The woman texted another female attorney about what had happened to her before reporting it to the prosecutor. The woman was distraught about the incident and left work early. She ultimately elected not to participate in the BOPS investigation.”
On the same page, related to the same case:
” The investigator also interviewed the officer in question and asked the inappropriate leading question, “[Y]ou didn’t bump into anyone or accidentally rub up against them and made [sic] a statement that you recall?” The officer responded that he did not recall anything occurring that day. The investigator then closed the case as “exceptionally cleared” without interviewing the female attorney whom the victim had texted about the incident or attempting to review the text messages. In closing these and other similar cases, WPD failed to pursue available investigative steps to ensure the case was fully investigated.”
It doesn’t matter that some creep in a uniform allegedly copped a feel with his crotch. What matters is the witness declined to cooperate, which is common in cases involving sexual misconduct. These investigations are a pat on the back, and thus an encouragement to continue the same behavior.
BOPS is nothing but a detriment to the police department and has contributed to residents having little confidence in or are in fear of this police department.
There are other cases outside the DOJ report where BOPS contributed to the department becoming worse and increased public mistrust.
Setting Up Saucier to Fail
No government organization has ever policed itself effectively. It’s never worked. Ever. That’s part of why the founders of the U.S. organized the federal government as three co-equal, independent branches of government.
This city council refuses to undertake its obligations and chooses defiance of the basics of American civics.
Just about everything will improve in the Worcester Police Department under Chief of Police Paul Saucier when compared to the last two decades. Better isn’t necessarily good. The residents of the city deserve good. No matter how you slice it, investigations led by a co-worker of the accused isn’t credible. Nor is a system where providing false testimony to internal investigations has no consequences.
One simple, well-tested idea could go a long way to restoring some accountability and credibility with residents: An independent determination of the facts in police misconduct investigations. This takes Saucier out of the difficult balancing act of ensuring accountability and protecting his staff.
Bad things happen when mutiny occurs in a police department.
In 2021, the Worcester Telegram and Gazette reported 21 sick calls by police on Feb. 4 in response to an officer being held responsible for a policy violation for not reporting the use of force. That use of force was striking a man on a gurney the previous July. BOPS exonerated the officer for the use of force.
An Office of the Inspector General doesn’t need to be only about the police. It could have jurisdiction over all of city government to investigate misconduct by city employees of any department and, as in other cities, states, and the federal government, several other matters.
In talking with some city councilors and other city government employees, they have made clear this won’t happen. When I ask why, I don’t get an answer.
The answer that can’t be given: That’s not in the political interests of some councilors. Some have a campaign to win this year and rarely say more than “I support the police” when campaigning. They can’t afford pushback from the police unions, disputing their support. They want this to go away as quick as possible.
There is also the plain truth that BOPS is the safety net of last resort. When a misconduct investigation get as far as BOPS (they often don’t), it can squash the problem.
This has been going on for at least 20 years. Some say much longer. One man can’t undo that from the inside. Council can and must take bold, decisive action. It will not.
If councilors don’t have their hands on it, they can maintain plausible deniability and let Saucier take the fall. They’d rather protect themselves than him.
No one has taken responsibility for where we are. No one has held themselves accountable for the federal government stepping in because a majority of the council is paralyzed by fear of taking action.
They simply don’t care. They will dispute that, but it’s very easy to demonstrate.
Natale Cosenza served 16 years incarcerated before his conviction was overturned. In his civil lawsuit against the city, a jury found that Worcester Police Sgt. Kerry Hazlehurst manipulated evidence and Detective John Doherty conspired with Hazelhurst to do so.
When Cozenza filed his lawsuit, BOPS investigated. It found that the detectives used the accepted practices of the time.
Sgt. Kevin Pageau wrote that BOPS report. Pageau and Doherty were partners in a case where a judge ruled they engaged in an unlawfully coercive interrogation of a 16-year-old girl that led to her confession of a murder of her infant son. The city settled the civil case for $2.1 million.
The report has no credibility, but city officials and some councilors have repeated its findings.
Pageau and Doherty have retired. Hazelhurst remains with the department.
Question: Whose job is it to review the evidence from the civil trial and the BOPS report to decide if a current Worcester Police officer would fabricate evidence to wrongfully incarcerate a city resident?
Answer: No one. They aren’t looking because they don’t care. It won’t happen to them.
In 2019, an incident at the Beer Garden ended with charges of Assault and Battery on a Police Officer and resisting arrest against Christopher Ayala-Melendez. Ayala has legal residency in the United States as a “Dreamer.” A conviction likely would have resulted in his deportation to a country he doesn’t know.
The arresting officer, Shawn Tivnan, included the following in his incident report:
“One such male, later identified as Christopher Ayala-Melendez, pushed past officers and was yelling towards the arrestees. I gave him a lawful order to leave the area and he refused. I was able to gain control of his upper right arm with my right hand to stop him from interfering with officers attempting to restore order. I then attempted to escort Ayala-Melendez away from the affray. Ayala-Melendez broke free from my grasp and came towards me and K-9 Mattis, aggressively and assaulted me by pushing me with his hands on my right shoulder. It should be noted that I was a fully uniformed police officer giving him a lawful command, with police K-9 at the heel position, wearing a harness labeled “WORCESTER POLICE” and a Worcester Police patch. I then performed a palm heel strike to Ayala-Melendez’s upper body in an attempt to cease his assaultive behavior and create distance, causing him to spin. At the same time, per training, K-9 Mattis reacted to stop the assaultive behavior towards me and bit Ayala-Melendez in lower left back. I immediately gave commands to Ayala-Melendez to step away and get on the ground. At this time Ayala-Melendez’s sweatshirt began to rip as he moved away from K-9 Mattis and I again gave commands to Ayala-Melendez to get on the ground to which he refused. He was taken to the ground by other officers and into custody”
Ayala lived in a building near the Beer Garden on Franklin Street at the time. Surveillance video from his building showed what happened that night.
(The following video shows the incident involving Ayala three times. The first pauses to highlight Ayala appearing in the frame. The second pauses to show Tivnan first seeing Ayala. The speed of the footage has not otherwise been manipulated.)
When Tivnan filed a false police report, he violated Massachusetts criminal law in ch. 268 § 6A, which says:
“Whoever, being an officer or employee of the commonwealth or of any political subdivision thereof or of any authority created by the general court, in the course of his official duties executes, files or publishes any false written report, minutes or statement, knowing the same to be false in a material matter, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.”
BOPS found a policy failure within its canine handling policy in March 2020. In August 2020, then-Chief Steve Sargent amended the report to sustain the allegation of a violation of policy on submitting reports. BOPS exonerated Tivnan of unnecessary force and he remains with the department.
You could argue that report is the only time a Worcester Police officer filed fabricated charges, and it just happened to be caught on video. That is, of course, absurd.
A far more likely scenario is that some viewed such practices as permissible, as accountability was rare.
Question: Who is responsible for reviewing past cases for accuracy to attempt to identify false convictions or anyone incarcerated that shouldn’t be?
Answer: No one. They aren’t looking because they don’t care. It won’t happen to them.
One current city councilor said to news media that the officer involved in this depraved attack on a pastor, in his own church, in front of his kids, was “doing what he was trained to do.”
If a resident objecting to an illegal order and saying a word the officer doesn’t like is in the training as a reason for an arrest for “disturbing the peace,” there is your systemic issue.
Instead, they’ll continue to promote the bad apples argument, while ignoring that the phrase ends with “spoils the whole bunch.” Why? Taking action isn’t in their political interests. They don’t care. It won’t happen to them.
What they refuse to understand is that when they violate the rights of citizens, as they did last year, by discriminating against a citizen petition based on viewpoint, they get a wholly unnecessary police escort out of the building. When the rest of us have an interaction with the Worcester police, we are rolling the dice. It will probably be fine, but rolling snake eyes means you get one of those in that minority of bad actors. Then, who knows what will happen.
It won’t happen to them. They don’t care.
I’ll be there on Tuesday. I hope many other people will. Do it because it is your responsibility to defend your neighbors. Someone needs to. A majority of the current city council certainly won’t.
