ACLU: Worcester City Council Used Unconstitutional Viewpoint Discrimination

WORCESTER – The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (ACLU) of Massachusetts sent a letter to the Worcester City Council, including Mayor Joe Petty, City Clerk Nikolin Vangjeli, and City Solicitor Michael Traynor, dated Monday, December 9. The letter expresses “serious concerns” that the application of council rules to prohibit consideration of a citizen petition is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

The letter calls upon the city “to restore the resolution to the Council’s agenda for consideration at the December 17 Council meeting, or at the least, no later than the first Council meeting in January 2025.”

ACLU of Massachusetts addresses the council’s decision to prohibit a resolution submitted to the city clerk’s office on Oct. 11 in its letter. The resolution calls for “the U.S. government to facilitate a ceasefire in Gaza, the immediate release of Israeli hostages in Gaza and Palestinian detainees in Israel, and the resumption of humanitarian aid to Gaza, among other things,” according to the letter.

A Worcester-based multi-faith coalition, which included Muslim, Christian, and Jewish members, organized the petition, including collecting over 1,500 signatures of Worcester residents in support of the resolution.

The letter says that the coalition submitted its petition to the city council on October 11, and received notice on October 18 that the resolution would not be added to the City Council agenda.

The Worcester City Council took up and adopted a resolution in on October 17, 2023, that said:

“That the City Council of the City of Worcester does hereby condemn the recent barbaric and inhuman taking of hostages in Israel, including a number of American citizens, and prays for their immediate and safe release and return to their loved ones.”

Councilor Moe Bergman brought the resolution, with Mayor Joe Petty and Councilors Khrystian King, Candy Mero-Carlson, George Russell, and Donna Colorio co-sponsoring.

At the start of the city council meeting on October 22, a request to suspend the rules, which a vote of the city council can do, to allow the petitioners to address the city council about an item not appearing on its agenda, failed. Five of the sponsors of the 2023 resolution, Petty, Bergman, Mero-Carlson, Russell, and Colorio, all voted to deny the petitioners the opportunity to speak. The sixth vote came from Councilor Kate Toomey.

After six councilors voted to deny the request to allow the petitioners to speak, supporters of the resolution staged a protest inside the council chambers at Worcester City Hall, causing the meeting to be adjourned.

The ACLU also notes that in an email from the city clerk to the coalition on October 21, he said “that on October 15, 2024—just days after the Coalition submitted its Resolution for inclusion in the Council’s agenda—’the City Council reiterated the importance for the City Clerk to follow Rule 11 even more closely.”

The city council cited Rule 11 of the Worcester City Council rules in denying the resolution. The rule says:

“Rule 11. Regarding Propriety of Items
No petition, paper, order, communication or report of any description which deals with personalities, or with matters not within the general supervision and/or relating to city government, or does not specifically state the business to be discussed, shall be placed on any city council agenda by the city clerk. The city clerk, with the assistance of the city solicitor, shall determine when an item is not appropriate for placement on the city council agenda.”

ACLU of Massachusetts Legal Director Jessie Rossman and Staff Attorney Rachel Davidson signed the letter. They say that the differential application of the council rules has “give[n] one side of a debatable public question an advantage in expressing its views to the people,” citing the 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti.

“Such differential treatment threatens the core constitutional protections enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Articles 16 and 19 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights,” they wrote.

Rossman and Davidson also cite a 2018 legal opinion by then-City Solicitor David Moore. Moore wrote that “under the fundamental principle that the governed have a right to petition their government for a redress of their grievances, we have exercised a bias in favor of including petitions that exhibit only the smallest possible connection with the city council.”

Moore also wrote:

“Another factor in determining whether a proposed agenda item should be rejected under Rule 11 is the nature of the item itself. There is a difference between a proposed resolution, where the council expresses its collective opinion on a subject, and a petition asking the city council to exercise its authority as the legislative body of the city. It is one thing to request adoption of a resolution urging the removal of U.S. armed forces from a particular foreign land; while it is quite another for a petition to seek adoption of an ordinance prohibiting federal law-enforcement authorities from arresting people within the boundaries of the city.”

The letter asserts that if the city wishes to adopt a narrower interpretation of Rule 11, “it may do so if it is applied in a consistent and viewpoint-neutral
manner.” However, that does note change the city’s “responsibility to first rectify the apparent viewpoint discrimination that occurred when Rule 11 was applied to exclude
the Coalition’s Resolution from the agenda.”

The letter says that “neither the First Amendment nor Articles 16 and 19 require the City to adopt the Coalition’s Resolution […] Council—but they do require that the Resolution is placed on the agenda and is given the same consideration to which all such petitions are entitled.”

Rossman and Davidson do not explicitly mention a lawsuit if the city fails to comply with the request to allow the petition to be heard by the City Council.

Previous ACLU Lawsuit against Worcester

In May 2013, the ACLU of Massachusetts filed suit in federal court against the city on behalf of three residents. The lawsuit sought “to block two anti-panhandling ordinances enacted by the City of Worcester, claiming the ordinances violate the constitutional right to peacefully solicit donations in public and to engage the public in political and other speech.”

The Worcester Federal District Court denied the ACLU motion for preliminary injunction to stop the enforcement of the ordinances. In Jun 2014, the Federal First Circuit court upheld the district court’s denial.

In October 2014, the ACLU petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case.

In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a First Circuit Court ruling that turn turned aside the ACLU challenge to the ordinances. On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the decision of the First Circuit.

The federal court struck down the two ordinances in November 2015.

Worcester Police Reform Strategy: Attack the DOJ

WORCESTER – An investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) into the Worcester Police Department (WPD) announced over two years ago, on Nov. 15, 2022, has concluded.

The report’s executive summary says:

“DOJ has reasonable cause to believe that WPD and the City engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives people of their rights under the Constitution and federal law. First, WPD uses excessive force. Second, WPD engages in outrageous government conduct by permitting undercover officers to participate in sexual contact with women suspected of being involved in the commercial sex trade.”

The private attorney representing the city in the matter, former federal prosecutor Brian Kelly, released a statement to the Worcester Telegram and Gazette early Monday morning, slamming the report as “unfair, inaccurate and biased.” Kelly added that the report “unfairly smears the entire Worcester police force by claiming there is a pattern or practice by the WPD to engage in excessive use of force and sexual harassment of prostitutes.”

“Instead of identifying individual officers who could – and should – be prosecuted if these serious allegations were true, DOJ has prepared a report by civil lawyers with no prosecutorial experience which makes incredibly broad allegations but fails to identify a single corrupt officer,” according to Kelly.

Kelly also calls for the DOJ to prosecute the officers involved in the incidents discussed in the report. That’s not a power this investigation has. The investigation is also prohibited from identifying individual officers.

None of us should be surprised. Multiple city administrations and iterations of the city council have wholesale ignored decades of Worcester residents asking, pleading, and begging to take issues within the police department seriously. Their words are acknowledged, promises are made, never fulfilled, and nothing ever happens.

Judging by the city’s first volley of response to the report, it appears we are heading down the same path. Smear, demean, ignore, repeat.

The tired playbook being rolled out, starting with Kelly’s statement, will continue. The city will claim to be the victim, smear the investigation, smear the investigators, claim it has implemented fixes for everything in the report, and ignore it.

From the day the DOJ announced the investigation, the city’s strategy appeared clearly at the city council meeting that same night. A normal reaction would be shock and embarrassment. There are about 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the U.S. In 20 years, the DOJ launched just 78 of these investigations. The investigation of WPD included it as one of the just 0.44 percent of law enforcement agencies in the country subject to a pattern and practice investigation by DOJ.

That is an exclusive club that is embarrassing to be part of.

Yet there was no lamenting during the city council meeting that night. Instead, Councilor At-Large Kate Toomey, who also chairs the Public Service Committee of the Worcester City Council, commented how unhappy she was that the federal government didn’t notify the city council first.

How very predictable. How very gutless. Someone start a pool on which public official will use the phrase “deep state” first.

The moment DOJ announced this investigation publicly, anyone with any sense, or who wasn’t fooling themselves, knew it was going to be bad for WPD. See the This Week in Worcester overview of the excessive force section of the report.

In a report published in January 2023, the Worcester Regional Research Bureau (WRRB) found that since the law that enabled patterns and practices investigations by the DOJ passed in 1994, it launched 78 investigations, with nine still ongoing at the time of the report. Of the 69 concluded investigation, 10 closed without an outcome, 14.5 percent.

Many aspects of the federal government fall short on efficiency. The Department of Justice is not one of them. Within its criminal investigations, research shows that in 2022, of the 71,954 defendants in criminal cases, 290 went to trial and received acquittal, just 0.4 percent. Most of those cases ended with pleas, as 1.9 percent, 1,379 defendants, received convictions at trial. Of those cases that went to trial, DOJ had a conviction rate of about 83 percent. Of its total criminal cases, it achieved a conviction rate of 99.6 percent.

In other words, when the DOJ says your name, that’s usually your backside.

Somehow, an investigation into the Worcester Police Department was going to come up just rosy? Of course it wasn’t. If it were, the DOJ never would have been here or they would have wrapped the investigation prior to 25 months later. According to the WRRB report, the average time from the start of a pattern and practice investigation to the announcement of DOJ’s finding was 26 months.

For two years, city officials have said that we must wait for the investigation to conclude. As we arrive at the inevitable conclusion, the city launches an attack, through its lawyer, on the DOJ. Disgusting.

At the bottom of page four of the report, it says:

“To its credit, the City and WPD have undertaken some reforms since this investigation began. For example, WPD recently created a Policy Review Committee that solicits public feedback on WPD policies, and in February 2023, WPD adopted body-worn cameras for officers department-wide. These reforms are promising, though it will take more for WPD to repair its relationship with the community and to address the problems uncovered in this investigation.”

If the statement of the city’s private attorney’s is an indication of the city’s strategy, the message is clear. The city manager’s office doesn’t care about repairing that relationship. The political cost of doing anything the police department, or either of the two police unions in the city doesn’t like, just isn’t worth it, apparently.

The city manager has moved to end any oversight of the police department. City council has no oversight powers allocated to it in the city’s charter. The city manager has refused to provide data to the Human Rights Commission, the only external oversight of police department, for two years.

On multiple occasions in the DOJ report, the investigators found instances of finding officers making statements about incident using force later contradicted by evidence, including video evidence. On multiple occasions in the report, incidents found to be the use of excessive force concluded with the officer never being held accountable after an internal investigation.

The city manager’s steadfast, multi-year campaign to ensure no scrutiny of the police department sends a clear message to those that are bad actors within the police department: We have your back. Do your worst. We don’t do firing bad cops who break the law in this city.

No, not all cops in the Worcester Police Department are bad. Everyone in any group is never bad. Some of them are. Nothing is done about it. Nothing will be done about it. The city manager hasn’t even issued a statement. It’s unbelievable.

So again, here is another constituent asking, pleading, and begging.

Mr. City Manager, stop this right now. For two years, city officials have pretended they would take this issue seriously once the DOJ completed its report. Having your lawyer smear the report isn’t it.

Call a press conference for the first time in the three years you have been in the job. Step to a microphone. Acknowledge that there are problems in the Worcester Police Department. Express horror at the findings of the report. Assure the residents of the city that the status quo isn’t acceptable, that the city has begun to fix the problems, but a lot of work remains.

Most importantly, declare you are going to fix the problems and that Interim Chief Saucier is the right person to lead the department through this period of reform. Then, god forbid, take questions.

Finally, release a plan to fix it, follow it, and do it.

You know, lead.

DOJ Report: Worcester Police Uses Excessive Force, Violates Rights

WORCESTER – The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into the Worcester Police Department, announced on Nov. 15, 2022, has concluded. The DOJ released its report on Monday.

The report’s executive summary says:

“DOJ has reasonable cause to believe that WPD and the City engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives people of their rights under the Constitution and federal law. First, WPD uses excessive force. Second, WPD engages in outrageous government conduct by permitting undercover officers to participate in sexual contact with women suspected of being involved in the commercial sex trade.”

The private attorney representing the city in the matter, former federal prosecutor Brian Kelly, released a statement to the Worcester Telegram and Gazette early Monday morning, slamming the report as “unfair, inaccurate and biased.” Kelly added that the report “unfairly smears the entire Worcester police force by claiming there is a pattern or practice by the WPD to engage in excessive use of force and sexual harassment of prostitutes.”

“Instead of identifying individual officers who could – and should – be prosecuted if these serious allegations were true, DOJ has prepared a report by civil lawyers with no prosecutorial experience which makes incredibly broad allegations but fails to identify a single corrupt officer,” according to Kelly.

The investigation by the DOJ, called a “pattern and practice” investigation, does not permit the disclosure of the individuals involved in the examples cited in the DOJ report. The investigation also has no power to pursue criminal charges.

The DOJ’s pattern and practice investigation is civil and conducted as part of the department’s Civil Rights Division. It cannot bring criminal charges. While the report discusses several incidents, it does not name the officers involved in the incidents.

The DOJ said in a statement announcing the report that, “this is the first time the department has issued a pattern or practice finding involving sexual misconduct by officers.”

The executive summary highlights two main points.

The first point says that the excessive force employed by the WPD, which violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, includes officers which “unreasonably deploy Tasers, use police dogs, and strike people in the head.” It also says that, “Officers rapidly escalate minor incidents by using more force than necessary, including during encounters with people who have behavioral health disabilities or are in crisis.”

The second point says the WPD violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause by engaging in “outrageous government conduct that violates the
constitutional rights of women suspected of being involved in the commercial sex trade by engaging in sexual contact during undercover operations.”

The DOJ investigation, according to the report:

“raises serious concerns that WPD officers have sexually assaulted women under threat of arrest and engaged in other problematic sexual conduct. WPD lacks the policies and practices needed to adequately address reports of sexual assault by non-officers as well, raising concerns about gender discrimination. In addition, the investigation raises serious concerns that WPD’s enforcement practices may result in discriminatory policing against Hispanic and Black people, whom WPD disproportionately warns, cites, arrests, and subjects to force.”

The DOJ did not find “that these racial disparities amount to an unlawful pattern or practice of racial discrimination,” and encourages the department to “collect and assess data about its practices and take steps to ensure they do not have an unlawful discriminatory effect.”

An independent report commissioned by the city, released in March, found that the WPD “does not have a procedure to systematically assess use-of-force incidents, examine any racial or geographical disparities in these incidents, and develop strategies to rectify these disparities.”

This piece presents the findings in the DOJ report related to excessive force.

WPD Use of Force

In the findings section of the report, the DOJ expands on what it calls the WPD’s excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The DOJ says its investigators reviews hundreds of incidents in which the WPD used force from January 2018 to November 202, and February 2023 through April 2023. Investigators reviewed police reports, photos of injuries, cell phone or body-worn camera footage where available, and any associated internal affairs investigations. They reviewed training materials related to force and interviewed commanders, supervisors, and people against whom WPD officers used force.

The reports also states that the “harmful effects of WPD’s use of force practices fall most heavily on Worcester’s Hispanic and Black communities.”

The DOJ did not conclude that this is evidence of racial discrimination, but that “it merits deeper review, which the WPD has failed to do.”

The report highlights five areas of use of force within the WPD that are unreasonable or excessive.

WPD Officers Quickly and Unreasonably Resort to Using Tasers

According to the report, WPD officers reported deploying tasers during 87 incidents from January 2018 to November 2022. From its review of a random sample of these incidents, the report concludes that, “WPD unreasonably uses Tasers to gain compliance from people who do not immediately follow officers’ demands, including by not instantly producing their hands for handcuffing, but who are not actively resisting or posing a threat. WPD officers do so without first trying to deescalate the situation or use lesser force options as appropriate.”

In one incident, the report says that a WPD officers responded to a park after a call reported a group of “kids causing mischief.” The caller said the kids were wearing black.

A WPD officer stopped a 17-year-old who did not match the description and was wearing white. The officer grabbed the teen’s hands, saying, “I’m about to detain your ass.” The teen pulled away, and the officer ordered the teen to get on the ground.

When the teen took a few steps backward with his hands up, the officer fired Taser darts into the teen’s stomach, causing the teen to fall to the ground. Less than five second later, the officer fired a second set of Taser darts into the teen’s back.

The report says the officer claimed that while trying to remove the first set of Taser darts from the teen, he shocked himself accidentally. That shock, he claimed, caused him to fire the Taser a second time.

The report says video of the incident contradicts the officer’s explanation. Investigators wrote that the officer never attempted to remove the Taser darts until after h fired the second darts.

The report concludes that “Both of these Taser deployments were unreasonable uses of force against an individual not even subject to a lawful detention, who did not try to flee, and was not resisting at the time of the deployments.”

The report also discusses two other cases of unreasonable uses of a Taser. An officer fired a Taser into a fleeing man’s back. The report says “Using the Taser was unreasonable: the man posed no immediate threat and the only crime the man had committed was loitering.”

The third incident, which includes a picture, makes the incident easily identifiable as taking place at Cornerstone Baptist Church, then in Worcester. Body Camera footage of the incident was released in 2022.

The DOJ report says that, “the officer illegally ordered the man to go back inside a nearby church,” then threatened to arrest him for disturbing the peace. As the video shows, the report says that the officer chased the man inside the church, tackled him, and demanded the man relax his arms to be cuffed. “Then, without warning and in front of children and congregants,” the officer “delivered a five second drivestun to the man’s back.”

A judge acquitted the man of all charges, which included, “disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, and assault and battery on a police officer.”

The report also notes that ,”WPD’s internal investigation found no wrongdoing on the part of the officer.”

WPD Officers Use Dangerous and Unreasonable Head Strikes

The DOJ report says that its investigators reviewed “many incidents in which WPD resorted to unreasonable strikes to the head.” It also notes that, “officers also struck the faces of people during calls for service related to behavioral health.”

In one incident at Walmart, an officer “punched a shoplifter in the face and midsection after observing the shoplifter get into a
waiting vehicle, then sprayed him with several bursts of pepper spray.” The report concludes that “These uses of force were unreasonable in light of the minor nature of the offenses and the officer’s failure to note in his report any other attempts to control or handcuff the man before resorting to punches.”

In another incident, the report finds that “officers escalated one welfare check, where a man who was exhibiting mental health-related symptoms was upset to hear he would be taken in for a mental health evaluation, by punching the unarmed man twice in the face after he retreated into an apartment.”

In another incident, “officers responded to a call at a skilled nursing facility to bring an agitated patient to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation and treatment.” The patient resisted being escorted to a stretcher by pulling his arms into his chest, spit on an officer’s uniform, thrashed on the bed in attempt to pull away from the officers, and kicked at both officers.” One officer punches the patient three times in the face, according to the report.

In July 2020, an officer struck a man being transported for an emergency psychiatric evaluation while restrained in a stretcher. Teh officer did not report the use of force until a video from a passerby became public a day later. When the officer filed the supplemental report, he said, according to the DOJ report, ” that it had been appropriate to use of force in order to ‘momentarily redirect his attention from spitting on [the officer].”

The DOJ report says, ” It is not reasonable to use a head strike against a restrained individual, even if the officer was concerned about COVID.”

The report notes that the officer “was never held accountable for this excessive use of force, though he was disciplined for failing to report the incident.”

WPD Officers Use Unreasonable Force that Escalates Minor Incidents, Including During Behavioral Health Calls for Service

The report finds that:

“WPD rapidly escalates situations and uses excessive force during encounters involving minor violations of the law—or sometimes no crime at all. Rather than trying to deescalate and contain encounters, officers instead unreasonably ramp up the level of force they are using to conveniently control individuals, including when interacting with people with behavioral health disabilities or experiencing a mental health crisis,”

The report recounts one incident where officer responded to a call about a group riding dirt bikes erratically. One man tried to get away, and eventually hid in a child’s playhouse in a backyard. When officers found the man, while trying to remove him from the playhouse, one kneed him in the thigh and punched him at least three times, including two strikes to the head. Two other also struck the man.

The report concludes that, “The force was unreasonable because the officers had probable cause only for minor violations related to riding a recreational vehicle, without any other specific evidence that the men posed a potential threat.”

During a call about a minor verbal disagreement between roommates, a 35-year-old man refused to answer questions from officers, citing his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The officers told the man he was under arrest for interfering with a police officer. The man resisted by interlocking his hand in front of his body. After officers tackled the man, on officer kneed the man and a second officer deployed OC spray.

The report concludes that, “not only was this an unreasonable use of force in response to a minor incident, but the officers’ arrest and use of force were clear retaliation for not engaging in their investigation.”

This section also says that “WPD officers’ failure to appropriately handle minor incidents is apparent when they engage with individuals who they know or should know are in crisis or have behavioral health disabilities.” The report concludes that “in many of the incidents reviewed, WPD officers instead rapidly resorted to force.”

In one incident, a man repeatedly called 911 making statements, “that indicated potentially delusional thinking.” Then officers arrived, one used their radio to inquire about a mental health evaluation. When the man heard this, he ran back into his apartment. Officers followed him and pushed him on to a couch. The man used his hands to push off an officer’s check while trying to flee. The officer was not injured.

An officer punched the man in the face, twice, “even though the man was unarmed and clearly exhibiting behaviors consistent with a mental health disability, and even though there were three officers present who could have worked together to control the man without resorting to head strike. The report finds the use of force unreasonable. “The officers then used additional force while handcuffing him. These officers had received training on intervening with people in crisis, but still struck the man in the head unreasonably.”

In another call responding to a man who made suicidal comments, but was not a suspect in any crime, officers handcuffed a man, “placed him on a stretcher, and waited for emergency medical responders to arrive to transport him to the hospital.” When the man discovered he would be sent to the hospital, “he began kicking and fell off the stretcher and later elbowed and attempted to head butt officers.” One officer “sprayed the man’s face with pepper spray and placed him back on the stretcher.”

The report concludes that the, “use of force was unreasonable because officers and multiple paramedics at the scene outnumbered the man, had already handcuffed him, and should have attempted hands-on techniques to further restrain him before resorting to pepper spray.”

This section concludes:

“WPD does not prioritize sending officers with expertise or experience in interacting with people in crisis. WPD has a Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) staffed with three officers, but its purpose is to ensure that individuals and their families are appropriately connected to proper services following a call, rather than to be first responders for these calls. WPD also provides some officers 40 hours of training in crisis intervention. WPD, however, does not prioritize dispatching these officers to behavioral health calls, and even officers who do receive this training are not necessarily well-equipped to handle these kinds of incidents.”

WPD Police Dogs Inflict Unnecessary Harm

The report finds that, “WPD uses police dogs to inflict unnecessary harm that is disproportionate to the level of resistance or threat officers face.”

From January 2017 to November 2022, “WPD’s police dogs bit people at least 14 times.” The report cites that WPD reported, “displaying” police dogs 41 times to encourage individuals to surrender.” Some of those displays and bites occurred during building searches.

The report says that “some police departments train dogs instead to “find and bark” so that the canines stop in front of a person without biting and alert the police officer as to the person’s location.” However, “WPD’s police dogs are trained to bite when they find someone during a building search.”

WPD’s policy on canine use, “permits officers to use dogs to search buildings when they have probable cause to believe a person hiding within has committed a crime involving the use or threat of “assaultive’ behavior.” DOJ investigators concluded that, “during building searches, WPD police dogs have bitten people who are not “assaultive,” not resisting, are not suspected of a violent crime, and do not clearly pose a risk to others.”

In one incident, a canine bit a, “woman who was hiding under a blanket in a condemned building. WPD arrested her for breaking and entering, destruction of property, trespassing, and resisting arrest—none of which involved assaulting or threatening officers or others.”

The report also found, “WPD has also ordered dogs to bite or allowed them to continue biting when multiple officers had the person surrounded and could have used less intrusive means to control the person.” The report recounts an incident where an officer ordered a police canine to bite a man resisting while he was on the ground, as two other officers attempted to handcuff him. “The police dog latched onto the man’s leg and thrashed its head for at least 15 seconds
before releasing its bite—continuing to bite well after cell phone footage shows officers had the man under control.”

The man suffered serious injuries in the incident. The report found that “the dog bite was unreasonable, as was allowing the dog to continue to bite well after the man was under control.”

The report also cites the following incident as an example of WPD failing to maintain reasonable control over police dogs in crowd settings.

The man attacked by the officer and canine faced multiple charges. “The WPD canine handler reported, “[the man] came towards me and [the police dog] aggressively[,] and assaulted me by pushing me with his hands on my right shoulder.”

The video clearly shows none of that happened. Falsifying a police report is a crime in Massachusetts.

The report notes that “WPD exonerated the canine handler from the excessive force allegations following an internal investigation.”

WPD’s Inadequate Supervision Contributes to Unreasonable Force

In this section of the report, the DOJ finds that “WPD inadequately supervises officers’ use of force.” It said that, “supervisors sign off on use of force reports that either included details indicating the force was unreasonable or that did not include enough detail for the supervisor to determine whether force was reasonable.”

This section includes the following:

“This investigation uncovered several officer narratives that were inconsistent with other documentation describing the same use of force, yet no supervisor reconciled these inconsistencies or otherwise inquired about them. In some incidents, officers’ written reports differed from available video footage, and supervisors did not reconcile the accounts.”

The report discusses one incident where, “WPD officers justified the use of a police dog by reporting that a man punched one of the officers with a closed fist to the back of the head.” During the internal investigation, three years after the incident, one of the officers filed a supplemental report stating “that he was mistaken when he initially reported that the man punched an officer in the head.”

The supplemental report was filed only after surveillance footage of the event was reviewed, showing the officer’s statements were false.

WPD never disciplined the officer involved.

See the Neighborhood Meetings This Week in Worcester

WORCESTER – The Worcester Police Department is encouraging residents to attend their neighborhood watch meetings to stay up-to-date on what’s happening in their neighborhoods and to share any concerns or questions they may have. Representatives from the city also regularly attend these neighborhood meetings.

There are over 50 Neighborhood Watch Groups in Worcester. Meetings are held regularly — often once a month in various locations in the city.

Contact the Worcester Police Department’s Neighborhood Response Team at (508) 799-8664 for more information.

Here are the neighborhood meetings this week in Worcester.

Monday, Dec. 9

• Tatnuck Square Neighborhood Meeting. First Congregational Church, 1070 Pleasant St. – 6 PM

Wednesday, Dec. 11

• Saxon Road Neighborhood Meeting, Congregation Beth Israel, 15 Jamesbury Dr. – 5:30 PM
• Newton Square Neighborhood Meeting, Blessed Sacrament Church, 551 Pleasant St. – 6:30 PM
• Lake View Neighborhood Meeting, Lake View Congregational Church, 115 Coburn Ave. – 7:00 PM

Thursday, Dec. 12

• Emanuel Village Apartments Neighborhood Meeting, Emanuel Village Apartments, 59 Evelyn St. – 4 PM
• Main South Beacon Brightly Neighborhood Meeting, Y.M.C.A., 766 Main St. – 5:30 PM
• South Lenox Street Neighborhood Meeting, First Congregational Church, 1070 Pleasant St. – 6 PM
• Burncoat/Greendale Neighborhood Meeting, St. Michaels On-The-Heights, 340 Burncoat St. – 6 PM

City Solicitor Traynor Retires after 37 Years in Worcester

WORCESTER – The City of Worcester announced on Friday, Dec. 6, that City Solicitor Michael Traynor will retire, effective Jan. 10, 2025.

City Manager Eric Batista’s office says the administration will announce, prior to Traynor’s last day, its plans to fill the city solicitor position.

Traynor joined the City of Worcester’s workforce in 1988 as Assistant City Solicitor. He received a promotion to Deputy City Solicitor in 1994.

In November 2014, while the Acting Chief Development Officer for the city while serving as Deputy Solicitor, then-City Manager Ed Augtus appointed Traynor the permanent Chief Development Officer.

Augustus appointed Traynor as the city solicitor after the retirement of David Moore from the position in January 2020.

“I want to congratulate Mike on an impressive and impactful tenure as a public servant to the City of Worcester,” said Batista. “His dedication to this community is unmatched and his legacy will remain through the numerous policies and economic development projects he led, of which the city stands to benefit for years to come.”

Traynor also sits on the board of directors for the Upper Blackstone Clean Water, representing the city. He also sits on the Board of directors for the Worcester Credit Union.

“I am incredibly grateful and proud to have worked 37 years in service to the City of Worcester,” said Traynor. “I have countless memories of the city employees I have worked with, the lawyers I encountered on the other side of the table, and projects I have worked on over the years. A municipal lawyer is a generalist wrapped in a specialty practice, and it has been immensely satisfying to navigate this field of law to support and further the different administrations’ visions to make Worcester a better place. While I have predominately been a city attorney, it was my tenure as Chief Development Officer that produced the highlight of my career: being a part of the team that brought the WooSox to Worcester and the construction of Polar Park.”

Join Worcester’s Housing Production Plan Forum on Dec. 9

WORCESTER – The City of Worcester holds a virtual public forum as part of the development of the city’s Housing Production Plan (HPP) on Monday, Dec. 9, at 5:30 PM. The city encourages all resident to contribute to the HPP and help shape a plan for accessible, affordable housing in Worcester.

During the forum, residents can review and share thoughts on the draft goals and strategies that will guide Worcester’s housing policies over the next five years.

The plan seeks to create a roadmap of actionable steps to ensure access to quality, affordable housing that meets the needs of Worcester residents. The process to build the five-year roadmap seeks to ensure the plan becomes a shared vision for the future of Worcester’s housing.

Residents may register in advance or join the forum on Monday via Zoom.

In May, the City of Worcester announced it selected JM Goldson, a Massachusetts-certified Women Business Enterprise (WBE) based in Boston, to draft the plan and provide advisory support in its development.

In April 2024, a report by Forbes ranked the Worcester metro area the third worst real estate market for renters in the US.

New Trade Programs in Worcester, Leicester Receive State Approval

EVERETT – The Massachusetts Executive Office of Education announced this week that 18 new career technical education (CTE) programs are now state-approved across 12 high schools, including two new programs in Worcester County.

The announcement included that the state approved the marketing program at Doherty Memorial High School in Worcester. The health assisting program at Leicester High Schoool also received approval.

CTE programs are sometimes referred to as chapter 74 programs, which refers to the chapter in Massachusetts Law that authorizes the programs.

According to the Executive Office of Education, “CTE programs equip students with the skills they need to succeed in today’s job market through development of innovative, applied learning opportunities that align with current industry needs and provide students with high quality learning experiences that enable them to see and understand their future career paths, including continued education.”

“Graduates of our CTE programs have the unique opportunity to enter the workforce immediately upon graduation, with industry recognized credentials and real-world experience that affords them a competitive edge,” said Governor Maura Healey.

“Career-connected learning helps students with the applied learning they need for the jobs of today and the future and supports our employers and workforce in meeting high-demand careers,” said Education Secretary Dr. Patrick Tutwiler.

The other programs receiving state approval are:

• McCann Technical High School (Northern Berkshire Regional Technical School District in North Adams): Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning Refrigeration
• Essex North Shore Agricultural and Technical School in Danvers: Metal Fabrication and Joining Technologies
• Salem High School: Carpentry and Programming & Web Development
• Whittier Regional Technical High School in Haverhill: Construction Craft Laborer
• Springfield High School of Science and Technology: Business Technology, Early Education and Care, and Medical Assisting
• Roger L. Putnam Vocational-Technical Academy in Springfield: Radio and Television Broadcasting
• Waltham High School: Cosmetology, Environmental Science and Technology, Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning Refrigeration, and Programming and Web Development

Man Arrested at Union Station for Fentanyl, Unarmed Robbery

WORCESTER – Police arrested a man at Union Station on Wednesday, Dec. 4, for outstanding warrants and possession of fentanyl.

Worcester Police detectives sought Nehemias Montes, 47, for outstanding warrants related to multiple unarmed robberies in Worcester. They learned that Montes was on an inbound train to Worcester and waited at Union Station.

Officers identified Montes on an inbound train and arrested him on the warrants. During his arrest, police also allegedly discovered several bags of fentanyl within his possession.

Along with charges related to the warrants, Montes faces an additional charge of Possession of a Class A Substance.

Worcester Man Charged for Recording Sexual Assault of Minors

WORCESTER – A local man with pending state charges for aggravated rape of a child now faces new federal charges for allegedly filming himself sexually assaulting two minor victims.

Local official arrested Antonio Merced, 26, of Worcester, in September and charges in Worcester District Court with three charges of dissemination of obscene material to a minor, and single counts of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, dissemination of Child sexual abuse material (CSAM), intimidation, enticing a child under 16 and two counts of aggravated rape of a child.

Merced remains in state custody.

Thge U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Massachusetts charged Merced with sexual exploitation of a minor. He allegedly created the recording in July.

The federal charge of sexual exploitation of a minor provides for a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years and up to 30 years in prison, up to a lifetime of supervised release and a fine of $250,000.
Editor’s note: The information provided in this report is based on events as described by the U.S. Department of Justice. The claims within are allegations which may be challenged by the accused in court.

UPDATE: Worcester Declared Parking Ban Ends on Dec. 5

UPDATE: The City of Worcester’s declared parking ban ends at 2 PM on Thursday, Dec. 5. Residents taking advantage of free parking at city-owned garages must remove their vehicles by 10 AM on Dec. 6.

A declared winter parking ban in Worcester goes into effect at midnight, Thursday, Dec. 5 . Municipal parking garages are free of charge to any vehicle that enters after 8 PM on Wednesday, Dec. 4 until the Declared Winter Parking Ban is lifted. The following garages are included:

• Federal Plaza Garage – 570 Main St.
• Pearl & Elm Garage – 20 Pearl St.
• Worcester Common Garage – 3 Eaton Place
• Union Station Garage – 225 Franklin St.
• Major Taylor Blvd Garage – 30 Major Taylor Blvd.

During the Declared Winter Parking Ban, parking is prohibited on either side of main arteries, emergency and bus routes, and streets in the downtown area critical to the flow of traffic. On all other streets, parking is only permitted on the odd numbered side of the street, unless otherwise posted. Find the specific restrictions on your street at the City of Worcester website.

Towing and ticketing will be enforced to keep streets clear.

For questions, residents should contact Worcester 311 by dialing 3-1-1, emailing 311@worcesterma.gov, or visiting worcesterma.gov/311 Staff will be available from 6 p.m. until 10 p.m. Sunday, Jan. 28

The National Weather Service (NWS) has issued a winter weather advisory and predicts two to six inches of snow. The winter weather advisory goes into effect at 8 PM on Wednesday, Dec. 4 through 10 AM on Thursday,  Dec. 5.

The NWS also issued a wind advisory from 10 AM to 10 PM on Thursday, Dec. 5. The NWS expects winds from 15 to 30 mph, with gusts up to 50 mph during the advisory.