PAX Centurion - March / April 2014

Page 12 • PAX CENTURION • March/April 2014 617-989-BPPA (2772) Anonymous complaints to IAD, tweets and e-mails stifiling any remaining attempt at police work By James Carnell, Pax Editor R ecently, as a union representative, I attended an Internal Af- fairs Division (IAD) hearing with one of my members, who was accused – anonymously – of running a red light – three weeks before he had even received notice of the hearing – and then required to respond to an anonymous complaint from (I guess…) another one of those “concerned citizens”. Most of us don’t recall where we were an hour ago, never mind three weeks previously on the sector to which we were assigned as a working police officer responding to a radio call. I asked the IAD investigators if there was any video/cellphone evidence or if the name of the accuser was avail- able, and, of course, well… the silence was deafening. But under the mandates of the (thankfully) former Commissioner Ed Davis, ( whose retirement party will be held in a phone booth and has already thrown the U-Mass/ Amherst cops under the bus for “over-reacting” during the recent drunken-student “Barney Blast”, a commission he has been appointed to investigate…GEEZ – ya wanna define “pre-ordained conclusions”, Ed?), anonymous complaints against Boston police officers are not only allowed, but encouraged! Not only that, but “tweeting” and e-mailing complaints are also investigated by IAD, resulting in officers scratching their heads wondering what the hell it is they’re responding to , and more than that … WHO the hell they’re responding to. It is indeed Orwellian to have to respond to anonymous complaints from people who do not have to sign their names under the pains and penalties of perjury, as we do every time we arrest somebody. But that is the sad, pathetic situation we find ourselves in today. We are expected by John Q. Public and the media to be plaster saints and tin soldiers, although our ranks are generally drawn from working class men and women who grew up in the city’s neighborhoods. When a politician extorts money from a business, it’s called a “political dona- tion”. When the same politician hires his cronies or directs federal/ state grants to his friends in high places, it’s called… “investing in a neighborhood”. When a probate lawyer bilks an elderly client’s estate,… it’s called “billable hours”. If a doctor overbills Medicare for services not provided… it’s called Obamacare. But if a cop accepts a free cup of coffee or a sandwich from a local business s/he has fre- quented and protected for years, it’s called “corruption”. We get tar- geted for “untruthfulness” complaints by the department, because our version of events differs from a complainant’s or scumbag-attorney’s version. And how do you prove yourself innocent once false charges are leveled? How do you prove a negative? Lawyers, judges and IAD/BPD have literally years to decide what occurred in front of us in seconds . Case in point: the firing of Officer DavidWilliams, who responded to a call of a dispute following a hit-run accident in the North End a few years ago. Long story short, the individuals involved had been drinking for over 24 hours (by their own admission!) over a St. Patrick’s Day weekend, then been involved in a car accident and tried to flee. David and his partner became involved in a physical altercation with one of the drunks (a Middlesex county deputy sheriff, by the way…) and had to arrest him after a wrestling match on Hanover St. Enter well-known, cop-hating attorney Howard Friedman, and mix in one part gutless city legal department and one part BPD administration more-than-willing to throw a good cop under the bus, and the result was $1.4 million being paid to the drunken deputy sheriff and DaveWilliams being fired. With our BPPA attorney representing him, David WON his case in arbitration, with even the arbitrator expressing wonder and amazement at how in the name of God the city could have done what they did, but the city has appealed the arbitrator’s ruling, and so DaveWilliams remains in legal limbo until a court renders a decision. (In Massachusetts, nothing surprises me anymore, so I’m not holding my breath….) My fellow BPPA representative, Jack Rogers of the drug unit, has been at IAD numerous times the past few months with his members, also the subject of repeated, false, contrived complaints from scum- bag drug dealers and assorted cretins, who know they can file com- plaints without regard for any consequences. In my district of Area A, for example, if officers receive a call for a fight outside a nightclub or barroom, they are met by legions of drunken idiots and cellphone floozies with their cameras at the ready, waiting for a “Youtube” mo- ment, while the officers have to wrestle on the ground with inebriated buffoons…or worse. No matter how fraudulent the complaint, the officer will be dragged up to IAD, interviewed, tape-recorded, and subjected to months or years of worry and anxiety as s/he waits to find out whether they’re guilty or innocent from what is essentially a kangaroo-court subject to the vagaries and influence of departmental and city politics, politicians and “community activists”. John Q. Public:You want to know why so many officers are reluctant to aggressively perform their jobs? I mean, you all complain about crime and moving violations and “quality-of-life” issues, etc. etc.You want to know why cops sometimes look the other way and don’t want to get involved anymore? You want to know why many cops try to minimize interaction with the general public? Take a look in the mirror. Or better yet, go ask IAD… (See also Boston Magazine April, 2014 – “The Complaint Jar Runneth Over”, Page 51+ for another viewpoint which raises the same issues.)