Cases We've Handled
These are some decisions that judges have made in cases handled by this firm.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 823 (1998) Brief to the Supreme Court for amicus curiae American Trial Lawyers Association. The case established the legal standard to apply in civil rights cases based on police pursuits.
City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) Brief to the Supreme Court for amici curiae ACLU and ACLU of Ohio. The case established that cities may be held liable for constitutional violations resulting from their failure to train police officers and other municipal employees.
Kibbe v. City of Springfield, 480 U.S. 257 (1987) Brief to the Supreme Court for amici curiae, ACLU and ACLU of Massachusetts. The Court agreed with our argument that this was not a proper case to consider municipal liability for police misconduct.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Alfano v. Lynch, 847 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2017) (establishing the proper standard for police to take a person into protective custody for being incapacitated by alcohol)
Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) (recognizing that individuals have a First Amendment right to record video and audio of police officers making an arrest in public)
Limone v. United States, 579 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2009) (upholding a verdict of over $100 million for intentional infliction of emotional distress for “egregious governmental misconduct” by the FBI in allowing innocent men to be convicted of murder)
Tardiff v. Knox County, 365 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) (approving class action status of two cases alleging illegal strip searches against county jails in Maine)
Lewis v. Kendrick, 940 F.2d 25 (1st. Cir. 1991) Amicus brief for the ACLU of Massachusetts concerning the availability of attorney's fees to civil rights plaintiffs who win at trial but receive only minimal damages.
Hall v. Ochs, 817 F.2d 920 (1st Cir. 1987) (upholding police brutality and false imprisonment verdict against Milton police despite the fact that our client signed a release of claims in order to be released from police custody)
UNITES STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Santiago v. Lafferty, 2015 WL 717945, (D. Mass. 2015) (Holding plaintiffs’ alleging malicious prosecution when confidential informants planted contraband on their property were entitled to discovery of the District Attorney’s investigation into the informants actions since any claimed privilege was waived)
Baggett v. Ashe, 41 F. Supp. 3d 113, 115 (D. Mass. 2014) (granting summary judgment to class of female prisoners who were videotaped by male guards while being strip searched at a women’s prison in Western Massachusetts)
Baggett v. Ashe, 2013 WL 2302102 (D. Mass. 2013) (allowing case against the Hampden County sheriff and the superintendent of Western Massachusetts Regional Women’s Correctional center to proceed as class action on behalf of more than 175 female prisoners videotaped during strip searches by male guards)
Hernandez v. Monantez, 36 F. Supp. 3d 202 (D. Mass. 2014) (finding that our client who was strip searched when she went to visit a friend in prison had sufficient evidence to go to trial on her claims that the strip search was unconstitutional. The court concluded that based on the facts presented by our client “an objectively reasonable prison official would not have believed that he or she had reasonable suspicion to strip-search plaintiff”)
Gelinas v. Boisselle, 2011 WL 5041497, No. 10–30192–KPN, (D. Mass. Oct. 17, 2011) (holding that a jury could find that our client's First Amendment right to free speech was violated when the chairman of the South Hadley School Committee silenced him during public comment period)
Garvey v. Macdonald, 665 F. Supp. 2d 47 (D. Mass. 2009) (granting summary judgment to our clients in a class action on behalf of prisoners who were unconstitutionally strip searched on admission to the Franklin County Jail)
Goddard v. Kelly, 629 F. Supp. 2d 115 (D. Mass. 2009) (finding that our client had sufficient evidence to go to trial in a case alleging Boston police officers falsely arrested him and used excessive force in removing him from Fenway Park during Game 5 of the American League Championship Series in 2004)
Tyler v. Suffolk County, 253 F.R.D. 8, (D. Mass. 2008) (allowing case against Suffolk County House of Correction to proceed as a class action on behalf of thousands of prisoners who were denied ready access to a toilet and running water in the Suffolk County House of Correction)
Limone v. United States, 497 F. Supp. 2d 143 (D. Mass. 2007) (finding the United States liable for actions of FBI agents who committed the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress when they participated in framing four men for a murder they did not commit, resulting in their wrongful conviction)
Limone v. United States, 336 F. Supp. 2d 18 (D. Mass. 2004) (denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss a Federal Tort Claims Act case for men who were wrongfully convicted of murder and their families)
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee v. Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authority, 2004 WL 1682859, 04–11652–GAO (D. Mass. July 28, 2004). The case challenged the MBTA’s policy of random searches of passengers on MBTA trains.
Miller v. City of Boston, 297 F.Supp.2d 361 (D. Mass. 2003) (permitting our client to proceed with a lawsuit against Boston police officers and the City of Boston based on his wrongful conviction for a rape he did not commit)
Nilsen v. York County, 219 F.R.D. 19 (D. Me. 2003) (certifying a civil rights class action on behalf of arrestees who were illegally strip searched at the York County jail in Maine)
Norris v. Murphy, 2003 WL 21488640, 00–12599–RBC (D. Mass. June 26, 2003) (granting our client's motion to prohibit a medical expert hired by the defendant from testifying in a case alleging false arrest and police brutality, because the doctor would not provide all of the information required by the federal rules, including his earnings as an expert witness)
Ford v. Suffolk County, 154 F. Supp. 2d 131 (D. Mass. 2001) (granting summary judgment to a class of thousands of women arrestees who were strip searched while being held at the Suffolk County Jail. The court found that their constitutional right to equal protection of the laws was violated because female arrestees were strip searched in situations when male arrestees were not. The court also found that the strip searches violated the Fourth Amendment rights of women who while being held at the Suffolk County Jail before their arraignment)
Mack v. Suffolk County, 191 F.R.D. 16 (D. Mass. 2000) (certifying a civil rights class action for women who were arrested by Boston police officers, then taken to the Suffolk County jail and strip searched as a matter of routine policy)
Gonsalves v. City of New Bedford, 939 F. Supp. 915, 920 (D. Mass. 1996) (finding that the city could be held liable based on the actions of the mayor and city council in a case where our client was beaten by New Bedford police officers then kept in a lockup cell in the police station, where he died from his injuries)
Melendez v. City of Worcester, 870 F. Supp. 11 (D. Mass. 1994) (denying Worcester police officers’ motion for summary judgment in a case for civil rights violations of police brutality and false arrest, and state torts including malicious prosecution and assault and battery)
Alves v. Lemoure, 794 F. Supp. 34 (D. Mass. 1992) (describing pleading standard for establishing municipal liability in a police brutality case alleging the City of Boston failed to properly discipline and supervise its police officers; police officer eventually went to federal prison for perjury in connection with the police cover-up)
Ocasio v. City of Lawrence, 788 F. Supp. 99 (D. Mass. 1992) (in a civil rights class action, holding that the policy of the City of Lawrence Police Department requiring police officers to seize food stamp identification cards violated the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable seizures)
Valentin v. Richardson, 110 F.R.D. 622 (D. Mass. 1986) (granting our client's motion for a protective order concerning a deposition witness in a civil rights case arising out of a police shooting of a young man)
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Shedlock v. Massachusetts Department of Correction, 442 Mass. 844 (2004) (finding that disabled prisoner had a right to reasonable accommodations for his disability while incarcerated)
Pasqualone v. Gately, 422 Mass. 398 (1996) (finding that Framingham police officers violated the Fourth Amendment when they illegally seized Mr. Pasqualone’s firearms and ammunition without a warrant or a valid emergency)
Pinshaw v. Metropolitan District Commission, 406 Mass. 687 (1988) (establishing when the state is required to pay for a civil rights judgment against a state police officer. Dr. Pinshaw obtained a verdict against a police officer who brought criminal charges against him because the doctor filed an internal affairs complaint saying the police officer was rude. The court held that if a police officer’s conduct meets the standard for punitive damages, the state cannot pay the judgment.)