Unreasonable or Excessive Use of Force

Every person has the constitutional right not to be subjected to unreasonable or excessive force by law enforcement officers. However, a police officer has the right to use force that is objectively reasonable to make an arrest or in self-defense. When officers exceed their authority to use force, the firm can help. Some of the cases the firm has handled include:

•  Beating after a police pursuit

After a police pursuit, a man was pulled from his car and beaten by Falmouth and State police officers. He sustained a broken jaw, which required several operations to repair, as well as fractures to his cheekbone and his ribs. The Falmouth defendants settled the client's claims against them for the full amount of their insurance coverage. The Massachusetts State police paid an additional amount.

•  Assault with a flashlight

A Boston police officer struck a young man in the mouth and head with a police flashlight. The man was not arrested or charged with any crimes. He needed twelve stitches to close the wound in his head and crowns to repair the damage to his teeth. The firm negotiated a settlement.

•  Use of a Chokehold

A man was arguing with another patron at a restaurant. A Chelmsford police officer pulled him to the ground from behind using a chokehold and then put a knee to his neck, causing a non-displaced fracture of his "Adam's apple." The case settled.

•  Abuse of a Homeless Man

A seventy-three year old man was taken into custody by an MBTA police officer. When the man tried to read the officer's badge number, the officer punched him in the face. While he was in lockup, the officer prodded him with a collapsible baton. No criminal charges were brought against the client. Officers tried to cover up the incident by denying that they had held the client. Videotape of the holding cell, obtained by the firm, proved that the plaintiff was in custody. The firm reached a settlement with the MBTA.

•  "Bad Apple" Police Officer

The Lynn Police were called to break up a loud party. The plaintiff and his friend had been drinking. When the police officer told him to leave, the plaintiff explained that he was waiting for his ride. The officer placed him under arrest. The plaintiff explained that he was recovering from shoulder surgery and asked to be handcuffed in the front. Instead, the officer cuffed him behind his back and pulled up on the handcuffs, re-separating his shoulder. The jury awarded the plaintiff $58,700 in damages. After adding attorney's fees paid by the defendant, the total was $112,000.

The firm sued the same officer again when he fractured the arm of a woman whose family had called the police for help in getting her medical attention. The police officer twisted her arm, resulting in a spiral fracture. The City of Lynn ultimately settled the case. After the second suit, the officer was finally fired from the police force.

False Arrest

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that a person has the right to be free from unreasonable seizures. A person may not be arrested unless the police officer has probable cause to believe that the person committed a crime. Some false arrest cases that the firm has brought include:

•  False Drug Trafficking Charges

An innocent man was arrested by Boston police detectives and charged with trafficking cocaine. The client alleged that the police officers lied about finding cocaine. One of the detectives was indicted in federal court for conspiracy to violate civil rights; he pled guilty and went to prison. The plaintiff alleged that the City of Boston was legally responsible for the detective's actions because it failed to properly supervise him and other officers, enabling them to file false affidavits in support of search warrants and to arrest people without probable cause in order to steal money from the criminal defendants. The case settled.

•  Racial Profiling

A young African-American man who worked at Massachusetts General Hospital was unlawfully arrested by private security based on his race. He was charged with assault and battery on a police officer, disturbing the peace, and possession of a dangerous weapon. These charges were dismissed at the request of the prosecution. The case settled.

Illegal Strip Searches

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that a person has the right to be free from unreasonable searches. A person may not be subjected to a strip search just because that person is in custody. Rather, the police officer must have a reasonable suspicion about that person to justify a strip search. Among the strip search cases the firm has brought are:

•  Strip Search after Arrest on Minor Motor Vehicle Charge

A woman who was strip searched after an arrest on a minor motor vehicle default warrant obtained a settlement.

•    Perverted Police Officer

The firm represented two teenage girls who, in separate incidents, were forced by a Wareham police officer to remove their clothing in the open for his personal gratification. The officer pled guilty to violating the girls' civil rights. One case went to trial and the jury awarded the girl $50,000 against the Town that employed the officer. The other case settled for a similar amount to the plaintiff. The Town of Wareham also paid plaintiffs' costs and attorney's fees.

•  Mack. v. Suffolk County

In Mack v. Suffolk County, the firm secured a $10 million settlement on behalf of a class of about 5,400 women who were illegally strip searched. For nearly a decade, the Boston Police Department sent female detainees to the Suffolk County Jail where they were routinely strip searched as part of the admissions procedure. Male detainees were held in police station lock-ups, where they were not routinely strip searched.

The firm filed a class action suit, reported at 191 F.R.D. 16 (D. Mass. 2000). In addition to agreeing to the monetary settlement, Suffolk County changed its policy and the City of Boston built a lock-up for female detainees. Furthermore, police training regarding strip searches was increased throughout the state, and other agencies changed their strip search policies to comply with constitutional requirements.

•  Connor v. Plymouth County

The firm reached a settlement agreement of $1.35 million in a class action alleging the unconstitutional strip searches of women in Plymouth County, Massachusetts. The lawsuit said that women were strip searched without cause at the regional detention facility at the Marshfield police station and before bail hearings held at the Plymouth County Correctional facility. The judge granted final approval of this case in March, 2004.

•  Nilsen v. York County

The firm reached a settlement agreement of $3.3 million in a class action alleging the unconstitutional strip searches of men and women in York County, Maine. The lawsuit, which represented a class of over 7,600 people, said that the jail’s procedure for changing prisoners in jail uniforms and the “clothing search” was actually an illegal strip search. As part of the settlement, York County enacted a new policy protecting the privacy of pre-trial detainees during the jail's changeover process. The judge granted final approval of this case in September, 2005.

•  Ryan v. Garvey

In January 2005, the firm filed a civil rights class action alleging unconstitutional strip searches at the Hampshire Jail and House of Corrections. The plaintiffs alleged that class members were illegally strip searched at the Hampshire County Jail after their arrest, or after a finding of civil contempt. The defendants are Robert Garvey, the Hampshire Sheriff, and Patrick J. Callihane, the Deputy Superintendent responsible for operation of the Hampshire Jail and House of Correction. In 2007, the Hampshire Sheriff agreed to pay $205,000 to settle the case. Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted in January 2007, with final approval expected by summer 2007.

•  Garvey v. Macdonald

In March 2007, the firm filed a civil rights class action alleging unconstitutional strip searches at the Franklin County Jail and House of Correction. Class representative Gregory Garvey alleges that class members were illegally strip searched by corrections officers who had no reason to suspect they were in possession of weapons or contraband. The defendants are Franklin County Sheriff Frederick B. Macdonald and Special Sheriff Superintendent Forbes Byron, the people responsible for the policy. The class includes people strip searched at Franklin County Jail after March 28, 2004, and before February 25, 2007. On April 15, 2008 the court certified this case as a class action. This case is pending in United States District Court.

Wrongful Conviction Cases

The firm represents plaintiffs who, as a result of police misconduct, were convicted of crimes they did not commit. Along with the firm of Cochran, Neufeld and Scheck in New York, the firm represented Neil Miller, a man who spent ten years in prison before he was exonerated by DNA evidence. Mr. Miller reached a landmark $3.2 million settlement with the City of Boston after alleging civil rights violations, police misconduct, and misconduct at the police lab that resulted in his wrongful conviction.

The firm was among the first to file claims for people who were wrongfully convicted under the Massachusetts Erroneous Conviction statute. We represented Lawyer Johnson and Neil Miller on these claims. Mr. Johnson served ten years in prison for a murder he did not commit. He was originally convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Mr. Johnson settled his lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in October 2006.

The firm also represents Anthony Powell, a man who was wrongfully convicted and imprisoned for nearly twelve years. Despite his innocence, Mr. Powell was found guilty of aggravated rape, kidnaping, armed robbery, and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon. He was finally exonerated by the court on March 28, 2004, after DNA evidence proved indisputably that Mr. Powell could not have been the perpetrator of any of these crimes. Mr. Powell alleges that City of Boston failed properly to train its police officers, and that members of the Boston Police Department used unduly suggestive identification procedures, withheld exculpatory evidence, and falsified forensic evidence. The case is pending in U.S. District Court.

Howard Friedman was part of a group of plaintiff’s lawyers that the Boston Globe called a “dream team” in Limone v. United States, a case against the federal government based on FBI agents’ participation in framing four innocent men for a 1965 murder. The verdict of over $101 million is the largest sum ever awarded in a malicious prosecution case. The case was based on formerly secret FBI memos which came to light revealing that the government’s key witness in the murder trial – a mob hitman and FBI informant known as Joseph “The Animal” Barboza – had falsely accused the men in order to protect the real killer, another FBI informant. Plaintiffs alleged that FBI agents not only knew that Barboza’s testimony was false, but encouraged him to lie and then conspired to cover up the misconduct for decades. As a result, two of the wrongly convicted men spent thirty-odd years in prison; the two others died in custody after serving more than fifteen years for a crime they didn’t commit. The firm represented the son of one of the men who died in prison, obtaining damages for his devastating loss of parental guidance and companionship.

High-Speed Police Pursuit

Howard Friedman drafted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 118 S. Ct. 1708 (1998), asking the Court to find that high-speed police pursuits violate the Fourteenth Amendment when they are conducted with deliberate indifference to, or reckless disregard for, a person's right to life or bodily integrity. The brief argued against the more lenient "shocks the conscience" standard ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court.