Boston Police Department under fire as it faces contempt threat: ‘Unthinkable’
The Boston Police Department is under fire for failing to turn over records in an internal affairs inspection of an officer involved in a high-speed chase that killed three teenagers and is subject to other complaints Attorney Zachary Cloud is requesting that the court hold Boston Police in contempt and dismiss a occurrence against his client who was indicted on firearms charges after a traffic stop an occurrence that involved the officer subject to the study Suffolk Superior Judge Katie Rayburn took Cloud s requests under advisement on Tuesday while BPD s internal affairs inquiry of Officer Triston Champagnie continues more than a year after it started Rayburn advanced the circumstance to a May status conference and a June hearing on a motion to suppress Champagnie arrested Joe Simmons Jr on June in Dorchester on firearms charges with the officer finding a loaded Kel-Tec P- in the glove compartment of Simmons girlfriend s SUV Champagnie pulled Simmons over in the early hours of that morning after he allegedly drove through a red light and failed to use a turn signal Cloud has questioned the officer s credibility which he says will be a key issue for the judge taking evidence in any motion to suppress hearing because critical parts of the traffic stop happened before a body camera was activated Suffolk Assistant District Attorney Danielle Madden has countered that Champagnie s body camera captured every portion of the interaction except for the reason for the stop The defense counsel s concerns were exacerbated when it learned last summer that the Suffolk County District Attorney s Office and BPD had been studying Champagnie for his involvement in a fatal high-speed chase in January according to Cloud s motion to dismiss Per the Boston Globe Champagnie sitting in the rider seat and Officer Matthew Farley the driver continued to pursue a motorcycle at a high speed despite Champagnie s acknowledgment of a supervisor s command to terminate Three teenagers in the car which reached speeds of mph died after they crashed while a fourth occupant survived The DA s office did not press criminal charges against Champagnie and Farley who remain subject to the BPD internal affairs review and are not allowed to have department-issued guns and uniforms the Globe revealed last week BPD has failed to produce internal affairs records that Simmons defense requested last August before a subsequent court order In court on Tuesday Cloud argued that dismissal of his client s event is an appropriate remedy with how long this has proceeded and how flagrantly they ve violated the court s order They flat out refused to comply with the court s orders Cloud noted That s what this is really about People who can flout court orders Obviously people like me people like Mr Simmons can t If we don t follow court orders we get held in contempt Robert Arcangeli assistant corporation counsel for the BPD commented the issue is complicated because of the inspection s pending nature with interviews still occurring as of late as Monday The department wants to conduct its inspection free of having to publicly release this information where it s available to the officers who are subject to the research he revealed Investigations take time Cloud noted a police attorney stated him Monday that he could visit BPD headquarters and seek documents but he argued that it doesn t adequately address the issue Cloud called it unthinkable that it took months for BPD to turn over all internal affairs complaints against Champagnie who earned in total pay last year according to city payroll records One complaint stemmed from a June event just days before Simmons arrest with the officer improperly handling a firearm causing it to discharge and damage property Cloud mentioned Simmons who had a previous criminal record before his June arrest is losing out on job opportunities as the incident continues to be delayed without the exculpatory internal affairs files In an opposition to dismiss filed Monday ADA Madden argued that because the defendant suffers no prejudice no remedy is necessary and sanctions are not appropriate There has been no deliberate misconduct nor any bad faith by the prosecution she stated
