Hey, there! Log in / Register
Court upholds verdict against cop sued by Allston man who was arrested after waking up to find officers in his house
By adamg on Wed, 11/18/2015 - 5:41pm
An Allston man arrested after he yelled at cops when he found them in his house in pursuit of a burglary suspect had his Fourth Amendment rights violated and deserves the damages a jury awarded him, a federal appeals court ruled today.
Scott Matalon was initially charged with disturbing the peace and resisting arrest when he used some choice words to question officers he found in his house without his permission on Sept. 29, 2010, after their clamor - and K9 barking - woke him up.
After he spent $56,000 successfully fighting those charges, he sued BPD Sgt. Mary Ann O'Neill and Officer Joseph Hynnes, charging O'Neill violated his right against an unreasonable search and that Hynnes used excessive force in arresting him.
The two were among BPD officers in pursuit of a man wanted for burglary at a Harvard Avenue restaurant when an eyewitness sort of pointed at Matalon's home on Farrington Avenue. According to today's ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit:
O'Neill tried the knob of the exterior door and found it unlocked. She then rang the bell, knocked on the door, and called into the house, all to no avail. Hynnes told O'Neill that he thought that he heard footsteps emanating from the second floor of the dwelling.
O'Neill called for a canine unit. After a wait of at least ten minutes, the canine unit arrived and a search of the residence ensued. The only person inside was the owner, plaintiff appellee Scott Matalon, who had been sleeping in an upstairs bedroom. Displeased by the intrusion, the plaintiff had words with the officers and was eventually arrested by Hynnes.
A jury agreed with Matalon that the officers lacked probable cause to enter his house without a warrant and awarded him $50,000 in damages against O'Neill. She appealed, saying, in part, she enjoyed "qualified immunity" because she was doing her job as a government employee.
Because the jury had found police had no "exigent" reasons to enter Matalon's house - such as an immediate threat to their lives or to protect somebody else's life - O'Neill's lawyer argued she deserved "qualified immunity" under another, relatively rare exception to the Fourth Amendment known as "community caretaking." Under this doctrine, officers are allowed to take actions that are not necessarily related to immediate criminal investigations, such as, the court said, "removing a car from the highway
when no occupant of the vehicle had a valid driver's license."
But that argument fails in Matalon's case because police were clearly involved in a manhunt related to a criminal case - the burglary at the restaurant - the court ruled.
[A] reasonable officer standing in O'Neill's shoes should have known that her warrantless entry was not within the compass of the community caretaking exception and, thus, that her intrusion into the plaintiff's home abridged his constitutional rights.
The justices also upheld the lower court's decision to award Matalon's attorneys roughly $135,000 in legal fees.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Complete ruling, Scott Matalon vs. Joseph Hynnes and Mary Ann O'Neill | 49.47 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Restores some faith in the justice system
Good job Matalon for standing up for your rights!
Hah.
You realize this settlement is coming out of the City, not the cops, right?
yep
maybe they'll hire cops that wont break the law in the future
Right
Because cops have what incentive to do that, exactly?
if the city keeps losing money
they might hire people that want to do the right thing
which, on the whole, the BPD seems to be doing a decent job at anyway
Or
Call me crazy, but we could just not indemnify officers.
sorry
i went for a more realistic approach
Sigh
Touché
What I don't understand (and would love an officer to reply to)
I can understand the police, if they really think the bad guy ran into the house, calling a K-9 and going in.
What I can't understand is the police becoming so aggressive once they realize they're talking to the resident, not the bad-guy. (I'm assuming here that they didn't think Matalon did the crime once they met him). Seems like that that point, a big apology and speedy exit would make sense, not a felony take-down. It's really irrelevant if he yelled or swore at them or anything else.
Lots of parallels to the Professor in Cambridge. I understand and appreciate that officer questioning someone seen breaking into a home. But once the professor said he lived there, and if I remember right, showed that his pictures were hanging on the wall, it seems to me a logical officer would have apologized and walked away. (Again, I think the professor swore and yelled and was a d*ck-head, but that's not illegal).
In both cases, it seems to me that the officers' "need to control the situation" led them to take things way, way, too far. Would appreciate if someone can explain things from another perspective, especially an officer's.
I'm a cop and I will say this
I'm a cop and I will say this: even though I'm still patrolling out there, I am for all intents and purposes, "retired". By that I mean, even though I'm still pretty young, I'm calling it a career. I've been filmed one too many times, called a racist for no reason beyond the fact that I wear blue, threatened to be sued for doing my job and watched in horror as all of America turned its back to me.
So even though I still have about 10 years left until I can actually retire, you may as well consider me retired now. There are still a few cops doing good work, but they're young and naive. Society will wear them down, probably at a faster rate than it took me. I can't imagine being hopeful coming out of the academy in 2015 anti-cop America. When I first got out, I was so excited to get out there and put the bad guys away. Now, after I realized how much you all hate me, I don't even go to serious calls with lights and sirens. Why bother? I'll just get filmed and berated. I'll just show up leisurely, safely, "yes ma'am" you to death, write a quick little report and go right back to la la land.
It's what you people wanted.
I honestly don't blame you.
I honestly don't blame you. The only thing people hate worse than the BPD on this website is ISIS.
This makes no sense
The rule of law is "anti-cop". Really?
Obeying the law when you are a cop is "anti-cop", and the public expecting that paid professionals should behave themselves according to a 200+ year old Bill of Rights designed to limit police power is "hating cops"? Really?
Wow.
WHAAAA
Ok buddy, keep collecting $80/hour to stare at a hole and NOT direct traffic while you're at it. Everywhere you look, every city, you see cops abusing power, slacking off, and collecting state pensions. Getting "paid administrative leave" when they screw up. Most powerful unions in the country making you de facto gangs to be feared equally alongside the mafia, bloods, crips, etc. and NO JAIL TIME.
People are anti-cop because cops put themselves in that situation. Internet, cameras, and social media are just peeling back the curtains now. We need the old guard to get out of the way so younger police who get that they are being watched can step up and actually serve and protect the community. Justice is slowly coming around.
I hope this is not real
But if it is, please, retire now. Don't wait. You may be right, you may be wrong (probably somewhere in the middle). But you are doing "us people" a great disservice. Retire now and enjoy the rest of your life somewhere you can be happier.
you
need to quit before your apathy gets somebody killed
disgraceful
Question to anon cop
Ok, I understand not loving the idea of having cameras thrust in your face, and especially being called racist when its not warranted.
But I still don't understand what I perceive in this case and the Cambridge professor, why, after the person was shown to be a homeowner, not a bad guy, why the officers (who I'll assume had good intentions at the start, but circumstances proved wrong in both cases) then allowed situations to escalate into BS disturbing the peace arrests and a violent take down.
I'm sorry you're so frustrated a tr work and hope you can find some new enthusiasm for your job. Another 10 years of just going through the motions doesn't sound fun. I also commend BPD gang unit and others who seem to be taking guns off the street daily without too many controversies popping up.
I don't know what "you people
I don't know what "you people" you are referring to, but I want you to do your job.
you people
ill give you a hint, its the people that pay his salary that he is supposed to be serving. but things like laws and accountability are getting in the way of being a cop so the job just isnt what it used to be
Awww, I'm so sorry that your
Awww, I'm so sorry that your job isn't all sunshine and roses. And its so sad that people film you. I mean it's so sad that the general public who pays your salary can watch you. I can't imagine having to work knowing my bosses can see me.
You are an entitled baby. If
You are an entitled baby. If you want to see why some people don't like cops then look in the mirror. You are stealing a paycheck yet acting like you are the victim.
Re: I'm a cop and I will say this
Thank you for your service, Officer. I get calls everyday from officers in your situation telling me how lucky I am to have retired just before Obama and the divisiveness that has so soured our country and our profession. Fight through the doldrums and I pray that the final ten years go by safely and you enjoy a long retirement. You are not alone, sir.
As for the synopsis of the case, one can only imagine the outcry if the officers hadn't gone inside and an occupant was being assaulted, raped or worse. A witness says a fleeing felony suspect may have gone into that house and officers find the door open and hear footsteps upstairs but apparently nobody responds to questions "is anybody inside?' We have both witnessed the regimental warning by all K9 officers, "This is the police K9 unit, if anybody is inside, come out now or I'll send in the dog." Did the tattoo artist sleep through the commotion?
At times like this, Paul Harvey's "The Policeman" brings some solace. God Bless and Good Day!
usually
you make good posts
but cops breaking the law under x y or z justification is not okay. the homeowner here is a victim here, pure and simple.
Not really responding to this particular point but.....
Courts have ruled many times that police can enter a house without a warrant to look for burglary suspects (fresh pursuit/exigent circumstances). This court said they should have gotten a warrant. If the City appeals and the next court says the police did not need a warrant, does that make the victim here wrong?
Also, the arrest of the resident has nothing to do with the ruling (isn't even really mentioned in the case). So if the police officers simply apologized to the resident and told him they were looking for a robber who someone said may have been in the house, the court would have still awarded the resident 150K+.
> Also, the arrest of the
> Also, the arrest of the resident has nothing to do with the ruling (isn't even really mentioned in the case). So if the police officers simply apologized to the resident and told him they were looking for a robber who someone said may have been in the house, the court would have still awarded the resident 150K+.
Actually, they would not have. The majority of that money is attorney fees defending against the arrest. And I'm not sure how you can claim the arrest wasn't mentioned in the case.
Here is the original complaint filed by Matalon:
http://www.universalhub.com/files/matalon-complaint.pdf
Probably half the text is about the arrest.
The appeal has nothing to do with the arrest; but the complaint clearly did, the size of the attorney's fees and awards clearly did, and the case probably would never have been filed if he hadn't been arrested.
It all stems from an illegal entry though.
The ruling does not mention excessive force, false arrest or anything about what happened after the entry.
Also, it does not cost more than 2K to defend anyone for a resisting arrest/disorderly charge. Most of the attorney fees were geared towards appeals in federal court and that whole process.
Disingenuous
Of course it stems from illegal entry. If they hadn't entered illegally they wouldn't have assaulted the homeowner.
But his lawyers probably told him he couldn't sue just for the assault but should sue for the illegal entry instead, because that was more likely to result in an affirmative verdict.
The actual motivation for the lawsuit differs from the motivation for the ruling. The motivation for the lawsuit is clearly stated: "This is a “section 1983” civil rights action sounding primarily in false arrest and malicious prosecution."
Without the false arrest and malicious prosecution (not to mention the assault and potty-mouthed incivility by Mary Ann O'Neill), this would not have come to court, and I believe you can read well enough to understand that.
If the police had decided to be decent human beings instead of abusive punks, and just apologized and left, there would have been no "false arrest and malicious prosecution," and hence no lawsuit.
You're just being disingenuous, and it doesn't do you credit.
This isn't like Gilk or Gates.
There were charges brought, a clerk/judge/DA found probable cause that the crimes happened, and Matalon was charged and went to a jury trial for those charges and found not guilty by the jury. Gilk and Gates (and other cases similar to alleged police misconduct) often find the charges lack probable cause and drop the charges after a judge knocks them down to a clerks hearing or simply dismisses them then and there.
And if they waited for a warrant, I bet the same situation would have occurred if the cops were being assholes. Do you think that would have changed anything just because they entered illegally?
I'm seriously not trying to be disingenuous, but I think there is a point to be made that if the police screw up at point A, it doesn't always mean you can act criminally at point B.
Of course it doesn't.
And the court found that Matalon did not act criminally at point B. So suggesting he did is contrary to evidence and judgment. Also scurrilous. Any person propagating the slander that Matalon did engage in illegal behavior should be ashamed of himself and conscious of himself as a bad actor.
I agree that the cops screwing up at point A (their illegal entry to Matalon's house) would not have justified criminal behavior by Matalon. If he had engaged in criminal behavior, I'd say "shame on him." But he didn't, so I won't.
If he had engaged in criminal behavior, however, the admissibility of evidence of such behavior would be questionable, as the evidence would have been acquired through illegal behavior (the B&E by ONeal et al.)
I believe this fourth amendment principle is very important. I'd be stunned to hear any police officer believed it wasn't, and would wish such a person not to be employed by the public.
Answer me this then.
Take 1,000 random not guilty OUIL jury trials over the last x amount of years, and what percentage of those 1,000 do you think had a BAC over .2 while driving a motor vehicle? I would bet my life it is in the 75%-95% range. Should I be "ashamed" to believe these people were drunk driving?
I know OUIL is a little more scientific than a resisting arrest/A&B charge, but my point was that the charges in this instance actually went to a jury trial, and yes, that means that there was enough probable cause that the crime happened and a judge agreed.
I don't think court waited for a not guilty verdict on the A&B on a police officer to come down with this ruling. They are separate, and that is one of my points.
I'm not trying to be disingenuous.
You are reading the complaint, not the police report or witness statements from citizens. Unlike many federal lawsuits over false arrest/4th amendment violations, Matalon was charged and had a jury trial for A&B and resisting arrest. That is all I am saying. There are added factors here that make this different than cases like Gilk or Gates where charges weren't even brought after review from the DA/clerk/judge. In this case the judge (who knows more than you do from reading just Matalon's complaint), saw the facts and saw enough probable cause to go forward with those charges.
You are still missing a key point
The ruling may not mention that, but had the officers on the scene acted a little less belligerently, perhaps there would never have been an arrest, in which case there would never have been a lawsuit, much less a ruling.
I get that.
But there are probably a few hundred lawsuits thrown out by courts against the police because their is no initial 4th amendment violation. This case had one, and the court ruled that way.
I don't think so.
It's entirely possible that the homeowner was a jerk looking for a fight. Far more likely, in my guess, is that the police on the scene failed to use even a modicum of diplomacy, humility, salesmanship skills, and street smarts to de-escalate rather than escalate the situation. Had they done so, then the homeowner would have ended his day happy that the police had been working to clear his neighborhood of danger rather than in a lawsuit.
Question for O-FISH-L
Sir, agree that from what I've heard, officers had cause to enter the house.
So they find the sleeping guy. Sleeping guy screams at them to get the F out of his house. He's rude and screaming and hates f'ing cops. (I'm assuming this is worst case. I have no idea what really went down).
But suspect was reported to be black. And white tatoo guy is in his boxers and appears more to be sleeping than fleeing.
Why does the officer then not apologize and leave? Instead they body slam him and arrest him on bs charges.
Same with Professor Gates. Agree cops should have been concerned with a guy breaking into a house. But once guy shows he lives there (pictures on the wall!), cop should apologize and leave. No matter that professional victim professor is a jerk and is yelling and swearing at him and calling them racist. Again, instead of walking away, cop decides angry resident is 'disturbing the peace'.
I admire police very much when they're doing their jobs. (See many of my other posts on uhub). I believe Darren Wilson was innocent and am undecided on Eric Garner case. But respectfully, I think the need to control every situation (even when their safety is not reasonabky in jeapardy) has been drummed a bit too far into officers' heads.
They didn't have cause to enter the house.
That is what a jury ruled, and is why the resident is getting 150K. If the jury did said the police had a reason to be in the house without a warrant, the arrest would have probably been legal (no idea about the excessive force claim, it isn't mentioned at all in this ruling).
Legal versus practical causes
That may be the legal reasoning behind the award. The practical reason why the resident is getting 150K, though, is that the officers on the scene seem to have acted like assholes. Had they acted with a little more social finesse, then the guy never would have sued, irrespective of whether they were legally in the right or the wrong entering his house.
(No, I wasn't there. It's entirely possible that I have it wrong, that it was the homeowner who acted like the asshole in this case, refused to accept a sincere apology and who then attacked to officers. I doubt it, though.)
Thanks Obama. Cause
Thanks Obama. Cause EVERYTHING is his fault.
OMG that was awesome.
LOL at blaming Obama for
LOL at blaming Obama for Americans getting sick and tired of dirty cops shooting unarmed people with no repercussions. Cops like you want all of the benefits with none of the responsibilities.
There was no one being raped inside. The only crime being committed inside was by dirty cops.
This thread is everything that's wrong with this society
What is wrong with you people? Were manners and respect not a part of your liberal arts curriculum somewhere in upstate New York? Try to spend a day on the job (real job, not Starbucks) where your every move is scrutinized and you'll stop giving a #%^ about what happens to the general public as well.
Cop bubble
There's this phenomenon that I am going to call the "cop bubble". It's a weird distortion in space and time that causes cops, and their fans and admirers, to believe that cops are the only people who work hard, put up with scrutiny, and endure abuse and second-guessing in the course of their jobs. The bubble prevents you from seeing that other people get handed a shit sandwich and get told to suck it up -- and do not have an all-powerful union backing them up, politicians scared to stand up to them, and a fan base that licks their shoes. In addition, in the echo chamber that is the bubble, it is impossible to see any valid basis for anyone to ever object to anything a cop does. Any objections are purely based on a hatred for cops taught as part of a "liberal arts curriculum" and not on the frankly objectionable behavior of the cops themselves.
If all that was too many big words, let me just say that I hope you go through exactly what the homeowner in this case went through. I hope cops break into your house in the middle of the night in "pursuit" of a suspect who in no way resembles you. I want to see you lick cop boot in that situation. Do you think you'll like it? I hope so, because if you don't, you're going to end up face down with cop boot in your back.
Hey bootlicker, being a cop
Hey bootlicker, being a cop isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in this country. More toddlers have been shot this year than cops in the US. How are cops "scrutinized" when they get a paid vacation for every unarmed kid they shoot to death?
What we wanted
Was competent, morally upstanding officers who uphold the law.
I am sorry you feel that's too hard a bill for you to fill, and that the ubiquity of video capability tears away a curtain you personally needed. But that says more about you than it does about us.
I recommend you look for other employment. You can see how happy some others, like fishy, are, that they got out before they got busted. Join them.
There will be others coming up through the academy who look at greater accountability as their opportunity to be good cops all the time, and like the idea they won't have to compromise their integrity to cover up for the bad eggs on the force.
America continues to love its competent and professional police officers. Make way for them.
Bullshit; the cops in
Bullshit; the cops in Allston were clearly doing a horrid job. If they actually engaged with the community, they would have known Scott Matalon wasn't the burglar. They also would have known where he lived.
At the time of his arrest, he not only was a local business owner, he was:
- Vice President of Allston Village Main Streets, a local business association
- President of the Allston Board of Trade, which literally is the organization the police claim they use to remain in contact with the business community
While I believe the police probably should not have entered any house and that Scott doesn't deserve special treatment; any cop actually engaged with the Allston community would not have treated a leader in the local business community in the manner they did. Instead, they would have been on a first name basis with the local business owners, and definitely the leadership of the local business associations.
The way the cops treated Scott belies the fact that they have no actual relationship with the neighborhood.
What has actually happened.
There's an old proverb: "when the whole world calls you a donkey, it's time to bray."
If "all of america" has turned its back to you, it's worth putting some thought into why. Everybody knows that the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers are decent, good people motivated by service to the public. Everyone knows that, when your profession brings you into daily contact with bad guys, you're sometimes going to be falsely accused of misconduct. Everyone knows that dealing with rough characters is going to involve a certain amount of roughness, some of which can be misinterpreted as brutality, instances of which are going to be taken out of context and used by the bad guys to make you look worse.
But, on the other hand, everyone also knows, that with over 900,000 sworn LE officers in the country, some small number of them are actually going to be bad guys.
It's not the tiny % of bad guys among you that has tarnished your profession's reputation; it's the 'thin blue line' practice of, at best turning an blind eye to misconduct by fellow officers, and at worst doubling down and actively protecting the miscreants in your midst.
Actually, what we want...
If you're the great cop you think you are, then start turning in your fellow officers when they screw up or allow their personal racism to interfere with good police work. Maybe work for whatever BPD's version of Internal Affairs is called. Clean up the system where you don't have to deal with the hating public. Make it so that nobody has a need to call you a racist just for being a cop because too many of your fellow officers are actually racists. Work as a trainer at the academy to teach cops how to de-escalate situations better rather than effecting felony arrests on residents who have their 4th Amendment rights violated and are pissed off about it.
Or sit on your ass and collect your paycheck and pretend you'd value that badge we gave you if only we wouldn't get in your way because we're the problem and not your fellow officers.
One of those two options is actually the noble one. You're the solution to your own problem...or you can keep being the cause of it. Up to you.
Cops don't apologize or admit being wrong
they try to save face by being even more aggressive, threatening, and intimidating. The more common example is behavior during knockless search warrants on the wrong addresses, often for drugs or fugitives.
There would be fewer unarmed people getting killed by cops if they understood this.
About possible confusion with the suspect
I doubt that was the case here: The suspect was black, Matalon is white. He's also fairly well known in the area. He owns Stingray Body Art and is very active in the local business community (a couple months after the incident, he became president of the Allston Board of Trade).
lol
yes but you see, he was upset with the cops for being wrong and breaking into his house, thus becoming a menace in their own right
take that man to the slammer
I am glad to see that the
I am glad to see that the ruling was upheld in the homeowners favor.
I would agree, the are many similarities between this incident and that of Professor Gates in Cambridge a few years back. Most likely both were guilty of nothing more than "contempt of cop". The differences though are that Matalon had to spend $50,000 on court fees to defend himself while Gates had the charges dropped against him and he did not even get invited to the White House for a beer.
I can see how this happened
.
but that doesn't mean it's right.
Scene: (cop enters house awaiting perp, tenant hears cop.)
Half-asleep tenant in boxer shorts: WHAT THE HELL AAAHHH BURGLAR!!! What do you think you're doing aaah there's someone in my house and I think they now know I'm here aahh I hope they don't kill me! Ahh I know if I keep yelling maybe it'll scare them off!
Cop awaiting perp: AAH WHAT THE HELL AAAHH PERP! What do you think you're doing perp you called your scary tatted-up roommate on me and now I'm gonna die, I'm gonna get you punk! I know if I act all scary and intimdating and cop-like they'll back off and I can arrest them and go home quietly to my family! AHHHHH!
It takes time for people to sort things out and calm down when they both think they're about to be ambushed: one guy woken from a dead sleep about to be murdered, the other waiting for police backup thinking a perp has alerted a whole gang of guys to his presence.
However, this could have ended more peacefully. It's the cop's job to deescalate the situation and sort things out. They don't even have to be nice about it, but they do have to obey the law and prevent the department from being sued for mismanagement of the situation, which they did not.
Yep, O'Neill screwed up.
But how do his actions justify the $50,000 lottery payout to this guy in ADDITION to paying his legal fees?
Textbook example of how both the civil justice system and the concept of 'damages' has gotten way out of hand.
Because innocent people
Because innocent people shouldn't be arrested for telling intruders, no matter how rudely, to get out of their own home?
MA law requires you to flee
MA law requires you to flee fist, hide second, and fight last against a home invasion. Sounds like the "victim" did things backwards here.
Wwww...whhhaaaaaat?
Wwww...whhhaaaaaat?
Not quite, and also not really relevant
In Massachusetts, there is no duty to retreat in the case of a "home invasion". There is some duty to retreat from someone who is there lawfully (this is true in many states, not just MA). That's the difficulty in this case -- I just can't see a judge saying that the cops weren't there lawfully, even if they were there in error and should have acted differently once their error was pointed out. The right to self-defense against a cop, no matter how unlawfully they're acting...that's a tough one.
How about this
We send some cops in on a warrantless search while you are asleep, and have you arrested.
You might lose your job. You would certainly have to lose a lot of work time fighting the charges.
Please develop some sense of ... sense. Like, think it through, beginning to end, from the perspective of the victim. I know this theory of mind stuff isn't your forte, but do try. $50,000 is not a lot for what they put this man through. Not very much at all.
tie it all together
he might even lose his section 8 benefits! (where applicable)
there always has to be at least one idiot^^^^
The only person inside was the owner, plaintiff/appellee
Scott Matalon
the idiot is you
"where applicable"
it was a reference to a recent ruling saying that you can lose section 8 benefits without even being convicted of a crime, merely charged
it wasnt in addition to his
it wasnt in addition to his legal fees, those were his defense legal fees. he was awarded nothing beyond that. and, according to his testimony, he never yelled at the officers, they were rude and and then jumped him from behind.
I'm not an attorney, and I
I'm not an attorney, and I play a parking-lot attendant on TV. I understand the argument for (and legal coverage of) entering a home/apartment warrant-less if an officer actively sees a suspect break in/enter. This does not appear to be the case here. Disallowing "fishing expeditions" seems completely within the spirit of the 4th amendment.
Would the police barge into a home and rustle up an innocent owner/resident on Beacon Hill based on some random witness' finger-pointing? I doubt it.
Teachable moment?
I'd be curious if a ruling like this is referenced in the formal training that I assume all officers take. Is there any required continuing education in that field?
this will vary
by employer
Was the jury award purely for
Was the jury award purely for the illegal entry? It sounds like the bad-faith arrest was a much bigger deal than the cops wandering inside.
personally
i would have gladly accepted legal fees and nothing else, with the stipulation every officer involved lost their jobs
Oh my
You ARE ambitious.
They also beat him up when
They also beat him up when they arrested him... on his front porch.
I'm not saying that the cops
I'm not saying that the cops were right in this specific situation, but as a citizen of Boston, I think Boston police do a great job and I for one am grateful.