What with all the presents to open and pies to eat, I suspect many of you may have missed this article published in yesterday’s Metrowest Daily News. It’s worth a read.
A Southborough police officer has filed several complaints with state agencies against the town alleging he has been punished for attempting to expose what he believes is criminal misconduct on the force.
Hired full time in 2006, Officer Michael Crenshaw has been on unpaid leave since July. He claims that stress from being unfairly punished for trying to blow the whistle on another officer’s “mind-boggling” misconduct has caused him to break out in shingles and rendered him unable to work.
Crenshaw has twice served as president of the town’s police union, and says complaints he filed on behalf of members were shoved under the rug by successive chiefs of the department and the town administrator.
The article details three incidents in which Crenshaw alleges procedure was not followed and prisoners went free as a result. You can read the whole thing here.
I know that newspapers are in business to report the news, but why did the MWDN need to make this the first thing I saw in the paper on Christmas day? They couldn’t hold off on printing this for one day?
I am confused why the Selectman do not know about issues like this and why they don’t step up and take control sooner. As with the swap shop and other town issues, they only seem to step in after things are out of control. How long was it before Mr Boland moved the date of the swap shop closing out so it could be discussed at an open forum, and that was after they tried passing that decision on to the DPW head. I will be taking Mr Rooney’s advice on these issues and be expressing my true feelings at the ballot box. Unlike most posts I have read here, I do not think they are doing a good job and am loosing respect for them. It’s time to have leaders that step up and take action and responsability for what goes on in these town departments. The buck stops at the top.
I would be surprised if the BOS did not know about this but it appears to be a personnel issue and as such they really can’t discuss it in public. It might be appropriate for them to acknowledge when they were made aware of this issue and whether they support the actions taken but nothing more.
From the MWDN:
Officer Michael Crenshaw has been on unpaid leave since July. He claims that stress from being unfairly punished for trying to blow the whistle on another officer’s “mind-boggling” misconduct has caused him to break out in shingles and rendered him unable to work.
I break out in shingles myself at the thought of paying this jamoke to sit at home.
I wonder what’s the case here? Do Southborough residents really care more about the swap shop than their police department? Or is it just that people have not had an opportunity to see this article yet? I really hope it’s the latter. I mean, everything we really need to know is right in the article, although can you imagine what hasn’t made the paper all this time? We as residents should be outraged and demand immediate action before another irreversible mistake is made. This is a department that is supposed to protect us and our children both at home and at school. I demand better than this. I know that not all of the officers in the department are as incompetent as this sergeant and the department administration seem to be, but if they can’t (or won’t) deal with their own rotten apples, then how will they perform when we really need them. Is this a trickle down effect of incompetence in higher places? This is a problem that has been ignored obviously way too long according to the column. What is this town going to do about it? Any ideas?
Mr. Ulfelder please read more carefully!!!!!
Officer Crenshaw is on UNPAID LEAVE!!!
Oof! Mea culpa. Apologies, and thanks, Chief Wiggum, for pointing out my error.
What a shame to read what has happened to Officer Crenshaw. We had Officer Crenshaw to our house concerning a larceny case, and we were impressed with how professional he was, and how accurate his folllowup report was. This was in contrast to how the investigating officer botched the case with inaccuracies, and was politically motivated to protect some individuals in the town. It is unfortunate that an outstanding officer like Crenshaw is being punished for exposing what really goes on in certain town departments. We need more Officer Crenshaws in this town!
I think it’s a little early to side with Crenshaw here simply because he is the only one talking here. I find it hard to think there was any grave misconduct here when two separate and very different chiefs were in disagreement with him. He had been asked to go to training and cited for not understanding protocol himself. Before we make judgements and lose trust in our police department, shouldn’t we hear from them?
Unfortunately I doubt you will. They will live in their protected shell and we will know nothing about what is going on. Look at the Southborough 8 who were crucified yet we knew nothing until it was almost over. This too will be swept under the rug and will just disappear and I wouldn’t be surprised if Crenshaw does the same.
How come the Selectman have not had an investigation into this, if the story in the Metrowest Daily is true, not only have the actions of this Sergeant who released the prisioners violated the law but it has also put the lives and safety of the public at risk. If these allegations are true and Chenshaw has been suspended for whistle blowing I, I shutter to think the amount our taxes are going up to pay the judgment he will get against the town. I personally think that the Selectman should put Chief Moran on adminstrative leave until either the Massachusetts State Police or Worcester County DA can investigate. If it is true she should be fired!
HERE, HERE!! Clearly she cannot run this department effectively and has proven that over and over again. How much more is this town supposed to take?
In my opinion like I stated before, everything is right in the metrowest daily news article. It references multiple documents! A recording! And these are multiple reports by many officers! Do you think that the reporter communicated with Officer Crenshaw and didn’t ask to see any of this for himself? Make no mistake, this did not just make the newspaper for nothing. In my personal experience, it sounds like Officer Crenshaw has his ducks in a row.
I agree we will never hear all of the real story here. Crenshaw will keep fighting because he will likely never get another job in law enforement since he can’t play politics like his seniors.
Also agree that this story should have more attention that the swap shop but nobody likes to hear about this kind of story since it’s about dirty politics that no wants to get close to. At least the swap shop makes us feel like we are all coming together to fight some invading force of Al Qaeda. The swap shop will be the fight we all remember having joined, we will all do out part to ensure liberty and free stuff for all!
But no one will think of cleaning up the business as usual politics that depend on public apathy and ignorance. That come to light every so often when a lone individual stands up for what they may believe is right. Sure would like to be less pessimistic but is anyone really surprised there’s a funky smell coming from main street?
We all need to at least have it in us to speak up like Crenshaw, even if he is “officially” proven incorrect and let go, with no apparent personal gain to be had he still acted and still spoke up, and you have to admit it is one of the bravest things that have come from any of our public servants in recent memory.
On that note- I really wish there we some nice stories about how our public servants demonstrated integrity and good planning instead of all the recent closed door BS. But none of that would make the news right?
Has Fox News done a story on Southborough lately? Seems right up their alley.
I am wondering wny any of the those speaking critically of Sgt Slatkavitz considered that he may have been the one to exercise sound judgment and discretion? Perhaps his actions were in the best interests of the town of Southborough. Its difficult to draw well informed conclusions from one side of a story, although I have noticed that many in this blog have done so.
Dave….
I’m not sure how you can infer that Sgt. Slatkavitz exercised sound judgment and discretion when as stated in the story Chief Weber, found that he did indeed violate in the very least protocol for releasing prisoners (see below).
“Sgt. Slatkavitz did not arrange the prisoner’s release with the Court, nor did he seek my approval for it,” Webber wrote. “Proper procedure would have been to maintain a police officer at the hospital. In addition, releasing the prisoner without a bail arrangement after his return to the station was improper.”
Being an attorney myself, I would not want to be associated with either of those incidents. You are to end up on the wrong side of a lawsuit.
@Tess,
This is exactly what I fear. As a lifelong resident, I DO NOT need my taxes going up because of our inept police department. They are supposed to protect us and not let criminals loose. I’m disgusted
Curious, I say that because I would suspect that both the past and current administration have a full understanding of the facts, not the one sided editorialized version presented by the 5th rate Metrowest daily news. Improper may reflect a technical non-compliance. My quesion remains, could the Sergeant’s actions collectively and individually have eventually protected the town and advanced its interests?
It seems pretty clear to me that these instances were not open to Slatkavitz’s discretion or to interpretation. There is proper procedure dictated by law for a reason and it appears he did not follow it. The law does not say “follow this procedure unless there is to be a parade in your town on the same day.” That is truly mind-boggling!
Notice that the complaints did not only come from Crenshaw but from a number of other officers associated with each incident. Crenshaw took the lead because he was the union president at the time. Good for him for putting personal advantage aside and doing something courageous for the benefit of our Town. Nobody goes looking to be involved in this kind of thing. They pick up the baton because their conscience will not allow them to ignore the problem.
We can speculate all we like but an investigation is in order, An investigation independent from the “friendships” and politics of our town’s inner workings. Interesting that this is not the first major complaint against some of these same individuals. We need people in office who are not afraid to do the hard work when an employee does the wrong thing. These things don’t go away, they only get bigger.
We are long overdue for the state to step in and sort things out since it appears that there is no one at the Town House willing to do it.
P.S. Dave, I don’t think anything about the the MWDN’s handling of this issue can be called “5th rate” as of yet. It is unfair to shoot (and disparage) the messsenger without cause.
As you say, “Improper may reflect a technical non-compliance. My quesion remains, could the Sergeant’s actions collectively and individually have eventually protected the town and advanced its interests?”
That is an excellent question. I almost chuckled when I read “technical non-compliance” isn’t that just a fancy way of saying he broke the rule or law? I understand that officers have some discretion when executing their duties – when it comes to making arrests or giving tickets. The article highlighted instances where the Sgt. released criminals that had outstanding warrants. A warrant is issued by a judge or magistrate to place the person into custody, at that point the officer no longer is able to exercise discretion – it’s out of their hands. I’m still troubled by the the Sgt’s actions. There are a number occasions cited in the article and one of those does contain information from the previous Chief of Police that comes close to giving an official response as I stated in my earlier post.
Now to answer your question, could the Sgt’s actions (releasing prisoners) collectively and individually protected the town and advanced its interests? The short answer, No. The only way that it could would be if the town is no longer part of the judicial system or chooses to apply laws and rules at its own discretion without regard to a judicial, governing or legislative body.
The Sgt. has established a disturbing pattern of releasing prisoners without the proper authority and should answer for his actions.
“In his report, Crenshaw also alleged Slatkavitz wrongly ordered him to put his gun away while the two were searching for a possibly dangerous suspect outside a shed on April 5, 2008.
Webber, in his report, sided with Slatkavitz, and, in a Sept. 17, 2008, letter supplementing Webber’s report, Kitchen wrote that the “chief and I feel that you (Crenshaw) would benefit from additional training in the proper handling of your weapon.
Crenshaw believes Webber and Kitchen’s recommendation was an illegal form of punishment. He claims Webber and Slatkavitz were good friends, and questions whether Slatkavitz was ever disciplined appropriately for the hospital incident.”
The above is a quote from Metrowest News……..I remember when Chief Webber discharged his weapon on Rt. 9, and I don’t recall a punishment on weapons training for him. Right or wrong there seems to be two standards in town, depending on what position is held in the police dept. That was another instance in town when stuff is swept under the rug. In my opinion, if an officer (Crenshaw) needs to have his weapon out for protection, then he should be able to do that. There’s a big difference between having your weapon out, and discharging your weapon.
Read more: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/news/x1228898754/Southborough-cop-alleges-sergeant-unlawfully-released-prisoners#ixzz1hqC2dKEQ
Dave,
I appologize for getting annoyed with you, however, again, In my PERSONAL experience and familiarity with SPD, I assure you…..This is the rated G version of the situation. I will leave it at that.
Thank You.
I have to disagree on whether an Officer has to execute an arrest warrant. There has to be discretion in everything done in government.
I found the news article to be lacking in so many aspects of investigative journalism that it was more an OPED piece. If we are going to make informed judgments, then use critical thought and carefully read the article and look for all the areas where there could have been further investigation by the reporter but was not. The lack of attention to detail can not be anything but intentional.
Clancy, I appreciate your comment and never thought you were annoyed with me. Thanks
I’ve emailed the reporter and asked for a follow up, and let him know of this blog.
As for where there could have been more reporting it seems like you are looking for a scientific paper rather than a piece designed to invoke just this kind of response and do it it a set number of words. There are enough points made for me to believe there has been misconduct that hasn’t been addressed by the administration.
Would you be comfortable articulating exactly what you want the reporter to flesh out? You can bet he would appreciate the chance to get into this further, since his editor probably has him on to the next thing that he will again only be able to give so many words to. Your direction could assist the reporter in satisfying your skepticism and that of other readers who have yet to comment given the majority of support for Crenshaw.
Dave,
The smoke and mirrors are not going to work this time. Please stop this half hearted damage control defense of Tim. Everyone knows that a police officer does NOT have discretion wether or not to arrest someone with a warrant. Especially someone with multiple warrants. That’s why there is language on the arrest warrant that states the officer “SHALL” make the arrest at the order of the court. I appreciate your loyalty but this time it is a losing fight. The people responsible for these problems with SPD have been skating for way too long and its not going to work this time. If this does not get taken care of the right way then I would wager there will be more people willing to speak up.
Also, say whatever you want about discretion but once an arrest has been made, the law does not allow for that person to all of a sudden be magically un-arrested at the whim of some sergeant. Being Chief of Police does not even grant a person that power. You don’t just get to open up the back door of the station, say a quick blessing, and then release a duly arrested prisoner into the wind.
This concept is so simply black and white it pains me to think any professional Police Sergeant or Chief doesn’t firmly grasp it. End of story. Now let’s have a PROPER INVESTIGATION and we’ll see who’s right.
I don’t expect any follow up to be done by the Metrowest news. I certainly appreciate your efforts in seeking his engagement.
Simply stated, the theory of the story was to depict the Southborough Police as a below average agency. Any research of court documents, public records and the like which would counter that would not advance the interests of the Metrowest daily news,
Clancy: In fact, society dictates that their police exercise sound judgment and discretion in all they do. So, let me ask you this, what is the legal remedy if an Officer determines, for good cause, not to execute an arrest warrant? What is the court of proper jurisdiction, what is the charge and most imporantly, how often do you see these actions being brought in court? Why do you see defendants surrendering themselves to a court when if there was a warrant under your argument they should be arrested while they drove to court?
You and I can both think of many situations when an Officer should not execute an arrest warrant. I won’t bore the blog’s audience with examples on the fringe of reasonableness when it would make no sense to arrest.
There are some cases however where the law does provide for the release of a subject from the police station.
My point is this, and certainly I respect your position: We demand reasonabless and sound judgment in all whom serve in government. The determination based upon a situational assessment to serve an arrest warrant is one that requires judgment and discretion, not a doctrinal, robot like decision to arrest. Unless and until all those factors are reviewed, a cursory presentation of limited facts will not provide this audience with the independent and objective criteria necessary to determine if an Officer’s decision was sound. I believe that the facts as presented in the Metrowest News did not adequately present the facts necessary.
I appreciate everyone’s courtesy and engagement in what is a great blog and for the opportunity to comment. I’m into theory and policy here, which is off point so having said my thoughts, I’ end here.
Dave, while I appreciate what you are trying to do, I would like to test your theory. You state that an officer has discretion, apparrantly even when law MANDATES an arrest. State law dictates an officer is mandated to arrest the primary aggressor in a domestic violence situation. There is no choice. An officer can’t use their discretion no matter their opinion of the situation. You are stating that officers always have discretion. Are you alledging they could decide to not follow law in that case and let the aggressor go? I am thinking not. A mandate by definition, is an official order.
In these cases however, keep in mind the difference between a default warrant and a straight warrant. A straight warrant is bailable by a bail commissioner in the state of MA. A default warrant is one in which they have already missed an appearance in court and can not be bailed or, let go on your own discretion for that matter. They must be brought to court on the next available opportunity.
The system is set up for a reason. An officer cannot be judge, jury and executioner. The way I am reading, is that these were not his arrests. These were arrests by officers that followed mandated law and department policy and he made the decision(s) to override those sound arrests.
Taylor, I appreciate your insight and respect a position which seeks to counter mine.
My understanding is that in domestic offenses (and in court orders) arrest is the preferred response. While it may be the predominate response, I have yet to see a statute which mandates 100% arrest, 100% of the time. Certainly good judgment and discretion dictates, that situation permitting that a primary aggressor, or a court order violator would be arrested. In your example, the determination of primary aggressor is made based upon a factual assessment by the officers at the scene. This goes to my discretion and judgment argument.
Cases on either side of the bell curve are easy to call, my position is that it is in the middle, the gray area which police and prosecutors are trained and educated to advance justice through the application of sound judgment. I think that the sound judgment position is at the crux of this and collateral discussions. Certainly there are opposing viewpoints, my position remains that in retrospect these are factually made based on all available evidence.
None of these cases, as I read in the article were domestic in origin. Were these straight or default warrants? This is an example of where the reporter fails to set forth all the facts, and you have idetified some of them. I believe there are circumstances, however where a default warrant may be bailable by a Judge, as opposed to a bail commissioner.
I believe that the general laws are not doctrinal in nature; e.g. police and government officials have discretion in their actions. I think thats a Constitutional precept. My argument is that there are insufficient facts in the article from which to draw informed conclusions. I believe, citing for example your strong case of straight vs. default warrants that the Metrowest News did not do a due dilligence investigation and that may have been designed to advance the theory of the story. Certainly it sold papers, which is their mission.
Thanks
After all the arguing and attempts by Dave to Defend Sergeant Slatkavitz the problem still remains. How can you question the integrity and judgement of multiple officers within SPD who found it proper to arrest these criminals. It does not appear that they were ever disciplined for the actual arrests of these people leading me to believe the arrests were sound. I mean we are are not talking about people who just couldn’t afford to pay a few traffic tickets. These are actual criminals we are talking about. I believe the judge and or court that issued these warrants would appreciate the opportunity to decide what to do with them. Does Sergeant Slatkavitz’s “superior” judgement allow him to override veteran officers decisions that are made at the scene? I guess we shoud just add Judge, Jury, Attorney, Bail Commisioner, Former Dog Catcher, and God, to Sergeant Slatkavitz’s title. How dare he?
I’m not sure they are actual criminals. Perhaps they were only accused of a crime, for which there would be a presumption of innocence. The article is silent on how any Southborough charges,if brought were resolved. There are significant differences in the standards of proof for a warrant vice a conviction,
Dave,
The General Laws do not always grant discretion in the actions of those enforcing them. I am an attorney in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and I can state for a fact that the lanaguage in a warrant says SHALL and not may, furthermore the only way a person arrested on a warrant can be released is by a clerk of courts setting bail or the person being brought before a court and having a judge decide to release them instead of holding them for the issuing court. I can tell you this, if the Court which issues the warrant wants the guy held to appear before that he get held until he gets to that Court. Time to clean house.
Confused,
Is your position that a duty judge cannot release a subject before the next sitting of the court?
I would be interested in seeing a statute which mandates arrest 100% of the time.
Confused
If I could follow up, please. I can see how a person may reasonably interperet shall as being a mandate. My question is, do you contend that under every circumstance, regardless of any condition, that when a warrant is in existence for a subject, that subject must be taken into custody? Thats a tough line to draw, and if you argue that, which is certainly one interpretation of the court document, how many time do you think that is neglected ?
In an earlier blog, I cited an example of when a subject surrenders him/herself to court. If the mandate was to arrest without any consideration to the facts, should the subject be arrested enroute to court? How about someone suffering a medical emergency? You will say I am being extreme in my examples and I am. I am only reflecting that common sense, fairness and rational problem solving needs to be taken into consideration in all that government employees do.
As an Attorney, you seek reasonableness and fairness in the administration of justice. I don’t see how mandating custody irrespective of circumstances is fair.
Mandating custody in these situations were not irrespective of circumstances. I am sure that the Officer Crenshaw would have used his own common sense in bringing such strong claims forward. They were likely not cases of a soccer mom missing jury duty. i.e. Felony warrants, multiple violent offenses… And, the discretion of the arresting officers were to arrest these offenders based on their knowledge of the facts.
The amount of liability the town is open to be the releasing of such prisoners is endless. Should one of these offenders have seriously hurt or killed someone following their unauthorized release you can be rest assured the victim’s family would sue.
As for “So, let me ask you this, what is the legal remedy if an Officer determines, for good cause, not to execute an arrest warrant? What is the court of proper jurisdiction, what is the charge and most importantly, how often do you see these actions being brought in court? Why do you see defendants surrendering themselves to a court when if there was a warrant under your argument they should be arrested while they drove to court?”
A department that does not take into account personal relationships and/or politics would have any officer that breaks departmental policy, state law, and/or does not follow a mandated order would be disciplined within the department and it would not need to go as far as the knowledge of the public.
Dave,
Either bail has to be set by a clerk or the person has to appear before the Court. As for you second question, the statutes concerning domestic violence and restraining order violations require an arrest for all violations of the statute.
Dave,
I have had clients arrested when they were walking into a courthouse to remove a warrant.
Dave, enough already!
Try as you might, I don’t think you’re going to convince anyone that a cop has the authority to disregard or reverse a judge’s order to place a person under arrest. Nothing that you’ve said even causes me to lean a little bit your way. We have separated branches of government for very good reasons.
I don’t understand what all the confusion is about….a warrant is a warrant.
There are many different kinds (bench warrant, alias warrant, federal warrant,
search warrant, no knock warrant, etc) but I believe the one under question was an
arrest warrant. An arrest warrant is granted when there’s probable cause that a crime has been committed by the person named.
Why on earth would it be up to the officer’s descretion, even when considering any special circumstances? The warrant is issued by the courts not the officers. I would imagine any officer would not even want the responsibility to make that decision as it would be their head on the chopping block.
Officers can and should use their descretion in making their own arrests or citations but when a warrant is issued it is out of their hands and it is only their job to carry out the warrent …..not decide if it is reasonable or not. It is not their call to make…period.
Confused: Show me the statutes. They don’t
For those who contend that an Officer should arrest whenever there is a warrant, regardless of the circumstances, thats one position, albeit to the right. My argument is that that does not happen all the time. There are many circumstances in which a warrant should not be served, all of which are driven by common sense. Law enforcement and government service are all about common sense. Thats why enforcement of some of the issues confused raises requires “all reasonable efforts”. If all you want are police that can only act in a binary manner; e.g. arrest or not arrest, cite or not cite, there are lots of places out there which have them, none of which I want to live. If a statute mandates arrest in all circumstances, then is the absence of an arrest prima facie evidence of negligence and is this almost strict liability? Simply stated, it does not always happen in the day to day efforts in law enforcement and the courts.
A duty judge can bail on a default warrant, at his/her discretion. I don’t believe they can bail on a capias. As to arresting a subject as he/she enters a court to surrender him/herself, absent some extraordinary set of facts or a very serious charge, thats just an abuse of discretion.
Instead of bashing each other over the head with this, how about we see what the Chief and Selectmen have to say about it?
After perusing all of these comments, I am left to wonder why not one individual has questioned the timing regarding the Town Administrator stepping down. It appears to have happened between the ‘no comment’ and the article’s release date.
What people have failed to point out so far is the fact that this is ONE side of an accusation. There are three sides to every story – one side, the other side, and the truth, which generally is somewhere in the middle. Naturally, because of potential litigation, the town will not share its side of the story publicly.
Yes, the Metrowest news article points out a lot of facts and quotes select portions of reports and investigations, a lot of which do not bode well for the town in the article. But remember, as the old adage says: you can’t always believe everything you read. Remember, sensationalism sells papers. In order to obtain the truth, one has to examine the entire contents of the reports and investigations.
As someone who works with the news media, I can attest that news stories are often inaccurate and misquoted.
Hopefully the truth is not what the news article is attempting to portray.
John Kendall,
Unfortunately the selectmen, and especially the chief, are not transparent enough to say anything about it, because it will reflect badly on them. Fortunately, sooner or later, they all are exposed and have to step down.
Dave, I appreciate your openmindedness and approach of questioning the one sided story that was written, I also asked the same questions as you. Too many in this Town have never followed the innocent until proven guilty approach, easier to attack. I found more questions than answers in the article, which actually made me question the credibility of the accuser. Found it nice he could sell out Marty L., thought when you went to a Union Rep it was confidential, guess it as well is up to interpretation.
I am also curious as to what kind of leave he is on? I have had shingles and must say they never lasted 6 months so I could not work, was a desk job not possible? Again more questions than answers.
Again thanks for your imput even though it appears others may not appreciate it, maybe someday others will not feel to the need to so forcefully try and get their “right” opinion out. Usually why I don’t post.
Thanks Lisa, I appreciate your kind comments
Dave,
First, there are three types of warrants;
1. Straight Warrant: The party has been charged with a crime, not arrested, and did not appear at an arraignment. Depending on the defendant’s record these people most likely will be released on some bail, whether it be personal or a set amount. FYI-Personal at court means you are released, personal at a police station means the bail commisioner comes, have you sign papers that you promise to appear at court and you pay him $40.
2. Default Warrant: The party in the past has been either arrainged or arrested. Sometime during his pending case he does not appear. 99% of the time these are NON-BAILABLE! In fact, say the Southborough Police arrest someone with a warrant out of Barnstable County. The Southborough PD brings the defendant to Westborough District Court, there the party would be held by the Court and transported either that day or the next to appear before the Court issuing the warrant.
3. Probation Warrants: Person is on probation and violated the terms of that probation. Most times these are non-bailable unless its a money warrant in which case the bail set is the same amount the money owed.
Now if you want to read you may check MGL 276 Sec. 29 which discusses in detail the release of parties with outstanding warrants. Just so you know part of the statute states that “if the charge is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment by more than 100 days the person SHALL be brought before the court…” Makes it pretty clear that the police cannot release the party. If you read MGL 276 you will find that you have been wrong in most of your assumptions, in addtion read chapter 209A and you will find that if you are in violation of a 209A order you SHALL be arrested. Now the facts in this matter are pretty clear.
1. 10/7/07 Slatkavitz releases Paul Lindauer after his arrest on a warrant for A&B on a P.O. which carries a minimum sentence of 90 days and a max of 2 1/2 years. It is unclear if this defendant was charged in Southborough for resisting or A&B P.O.. The release of this defendant is in violation of M.G.L. 276 Ch. 29
2. Slatkavitz and Moran unarrest someone on 9/28/2010, its not the decision of the Executive Branch of Government to decide with probable cause exists to sustain a complaint, that is the job of the judicial branch, once officer Laughlin decided to make the arrest all decisions regarding this case and prisioner became the duty of the Courts or the Office of the District Attorney not the police. It from this little part in the Consitution called seperation of powers.
3. 12/25/2010 Nicholas makes an arrest, this woman claims to be pregnant (which my sources say was a lie). In addtion to the new charges in Southborough, she has warrants, four at the time, two for breaking and entering, you can check M.G.L. 266 sec. 17 & 18 to learn both of these warrants would be covered under 276/29. However again Slatkavitz does not keep her in the custody of the Southborough Police, it is unclear if even an officer went in the ambulance with this person to UMass. He relies on the security guards at UMass to guard her. At minimum he should have sent an officer to the hospital to watch her until either they could get an officer on overtime to guard her, transfer custody to the Worcester County Sheriff or to the Worcester Police.
This woman is then arrested on the warrants two months later when she broke into someone’s house and threatened the occupants with a chisel. (FYI I would like to represent these victims in a civil action against, the town, Ms. Kitchen, Moran and Slatkavitz.)
The actions of this officer and Chief Moran are clearly violate the statutes referenced in this post. Hopefully you now understand the seriousness of the violations committed by these members of the Southborough Police. The sad thing is that the Selectman have not acted. The actions of Chief Moran are inexcusable and quite frankly disgust me as they should any law abiding citizen, not only did she attempt to coverup the actions of this Sergeant but then suspends the person who is now bringing these actions to light. There is no question in my mind that tonight all parties involved in this scandal should be suspended with or without pay by the Selectman. Finally if you want to do some additional reading I direct your attention to M.G.L 268 sec 17 & 18. Once you read these please explain why Sgt. Slatkavitz and Chief Moran should not be charged under this statute.
Lisa,
I agree with your comment about jumping to conclusions but this is pretty clear and the information from what I understand has all be confirmed by the writer of the article. Its pretty easy to check because it is all public information. If you are referring to the people released, they do have a presumption of innocence, however once a warrant is issued it is the job of the Court and those 6 or 12 good people on a jury to decide. Not a Sergeant in a town that did not even issue the warrant.
Does anyone know what happened with the huge liability problem in the Police Department? Is it going to cost us thousands of dollars in legal bills and another appology from the BOS like the pizzagate? They were worried about bad behivior at the transfer station and overeact by closing it. However, a police officer/supervisor is allowing violent prisoners to escape and it appears that no town offiical seems to care. Speaking of the Swap Shop…did anyone actually see any of the Police Reports from the “many” incidents? SB residents, if someone gets killed by a prisoner that is allowed to go free by the officer, it’s going to coast us a lot more than hiring an employee for the Swap Shop. This, pizzagate…it all reflects on us as a town. At what point are we going to demand better? I would think that if this officer was found in violation of protocol during the mentioned investigation when he let a prisoner go to have a car for the parade that people would be outraged by that incident alone never mind his continued employment after the ensuing incidents?
Taylor,
I have not seen or heard anything either. I have twice e-mailed the selectmen via the Town of Southborough Website, however I have not received a reply back. Maybe if more people e-mail and/or call the selectmen then we will hear something, anything! It’s really a shame that it has to be this way in this town. I am well aware that they will most likely be limited in what they can say but at this point I would appreciate any type of response. I’d rather have had a swift, well thought out, plan of action though. Is that asking for too much?
SB Residents,
Is this situation under investigation? Also, I would like to see the reports on the investigations that Chairman Boland stated were concluded at the end of the last BOS meeting. What does it say? Can this report be released? Who did what and why and how much is this going to cost or has cost the residents? Are there any law suits from anyone affected or inproperly released? How much has this cost in legal fees?
Lets, be perfectly frank:it starts and stops at the very top……rotten to the core. Nothing more needs to be said!
T