PAX Centurion - March / April 2014

Page 24 • PAX CENTURION • March/April 2014 617-989-BPPA (2772) THE LAW FIRM OF SCOTT D. GOLDBERG, P.C. Proudly Supports the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association After the year Boston has had,marked by the Marathon bombing and the heroic actions of many Boston police officers and first responders, it has never been more clear how you put your health and life on the line to protect and serve the public.If you are injured then you need someone to protect and represent you. BostonAttorney Scott Goldberg is proud to be the personal lawyer for many members of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association and their families for over 20 years. Since 1990,Attorney Goldberg, who has been selected as one of Boston’s 2013 “Super Lawyers” in Personal Injury Law by Thomson Reuters and published in Boston Magazine, has won and settled many cases for police men and women who were injured both on-duty and off, obtaining financial compensation that included lost base, detail, and overtime pay - even if they received Injured on Duty pay or used sick days.The financial recovery would also include payment for medical expenses, disability, and pain and suffering. If you, your family, or friends have been injured then contact Attorney Scott Goldberg for a free consultation. THE LAW FIRM OF SCOTT D. GOLDBERG, P.C . 52 TEMPLE PLACE, 4 TH FLOOR, BOSTON, MA 02111 SCOTT D. GOLDBERG, ESQ, Representing Injured Police Officers Since 1990 Tel 617•227•1888 scott@goldberglawfirm.net Fax 617•227•2104 www.goldberglawfirm.net was attending or had made known his intention to simply attend a civil or criminal proceeding including all of the aforementioned types of pro- ceedings. In order for conduct to constitute a criminal offense however, one must act with the intent to impede, obstruct, delay, harm, punish or otherwise interfere thereby such a proceeding. What is the practical effect of this amendment? Well, I have seen some individuals charged with simply misleading police investigators. I have also seen police officers charged with submitting arrest reports that are allegedly false or misleading in some way to a Clerk Magistrate in support, for example, of the issuance of a criminal complaint. I am somewhat disappointed to note that I have yet to see it applied or utilized against individuals that lodge false claims against police officers, or false claims against others, in civil or criminal proceedings. This statute, for example, would seem to cover false statements made to Internal Affairs or to the court in support of a criminal complaint application against a police officer or anyone else. It would likewise cover false statements made in support of a civil harassment order. For example, I have witnessed a number of instances in which it is very clear, through documentary or recorded evidence, that a complaining witness falsified allegations against another party. Most of the time my client is happy to emerge from the proceedings successfully. However, I sense no impetus on the part of the authorities who have been misled to seek charges against civilians in circumstances in which it is clear that the false allega- tions, whether civil or criminal, have been filed to gain the upper hand in some sort of civil, domestic or other proceeding. The statute broadens the scope of charges which all police officers might consider lodging against individuals who mislead them in some way or who file or make some sort of false or misleading statement to an investigating officer. It also would allow the prosecution of those who misled a court or attorney in any matters with the appropriate intent to impede or interfere with the proceeding. The statute also has another, perhaps unintended, consequence. Be- cause it is so broad in scope, the statute likewise represents an expansion of the scope of the FifthAmendment andArticle 12 privileges against self-incrimination. After all, when you broaden the scope of criminal culpability to include, for example, misleading a court officer or clerk in even civil cases, then you likewise broaden the circumstances in which a person may invoke his or her self-incrimination rights. Think of it. The statute criminalizes misleading a court officer or clerk or proba- tion officer in even a civil, probate or housing court proceeding. The extent to which this statute extends the scope of a person’s right against self-incrimination under Article 12 of the Mass. Declaration of Rights of the FifthAmendment to the U.S. Constitution is substantial. Keep in mind that the statute even criminalizes misleading a person who has “made known his intention to attend a civil proceeding.” Carried to its logical extreme, the statute might criminalize the act of someone who misinforms a witness about the date or location of a civil trial or a probate court proceeding. The statute is worth looking at as it represents, as I stated earlier, a state form of obstruction of justice which was absent from the general laws of the Commonwealth up until 2006. The statute as amended may well constitute the proper avenue for criminally charg- ing the conduct of individuals which police officers might encounter on a fairly regular basis. As always, please be careful and safe out there. From Intimidation on page 23 Intimidation statute amended