85-year-old Tewksbury woman accuses town, police of civil rights violations

7/23/2019 85-year-old Tewksbury woman accuses town, police of civil rights violations

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/85-year-old-tewksbury-woman-accuses-town-police-of-civil-rights-violations 1/37

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

________________________________________

)

ALICE E. O’CONNELL, ))

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

) Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-14027

Town of Tewksbury, Town of Tewksbury Police )

Department, Chief of Police Timothy Sheehan, )

Deputy Chief of Police John S. Voto, )

Lieutenant Robert Stephens, Lieutenant Ryan )

Columbus, Sergeant Walter Jop, III, Sergeant )Brian Warren, Officer Markus E. McMahon, )

Officer Eric Hanley, Police Officers John Does )

## 1 through 4, )

)

Defendants. )

________________________________________ )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Alice E. O’Connell (“Mrs. O’Connell” complains against the named Defendants

as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is a civil rights action brought by Plaintiff, Alice E. O’Connell, against the

Town of Tewksbury, the Tewksbury Police Department (“Tewksbury Police Dept.”) and

individual Tewksbury police officers based on their violations of Mrs. O’Connell’s Constitutional

and common law rights during and following an incident which occurred at Mrs. O’Connell’s

home on or about May 24, 2013. The complaint alleges that officers of the Tewksbury Police

Dept., acting pursuant to customs, policies and practices of the Town of Tewksbury and the

Tewksbury Police Dept., arrested Mrs. O’Connell without probable cause; unlawfully imprisoned

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 of 35



2

her; subjected her to unwarranted psychological evaluation while in police custody; unlawfully

interrogated her while she was in police custody without advisement of Miranda rights or the

benefit of the statutorily required use of a telephone, thereby obtaining statements from her which

were used against her in court; and made false statements in the resulting police report to hide their

unlawful conduct. The unlawful actions of the officers of the Tewksbury Police Dept. were done in

retaliation for Mrs. O’Connell’s verbal disagreement with the wrongful conduct of a Tewksbury

police officer and in retaliation for her statements made to the Tewksbury police officers that she

would file litigation against the Tewksbury police officer who wrongfully arrested her. The

unlawful actions of the Tewksbury police officers violated Mrs. O’Connell’s rights under the First,

Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Articles 12, 14

and 16 of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution. Mrs. O’Connell also asserts

common law claims against the individual Defendants for false arrest, false imprisonment,

malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, and the First,

Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Massachusetts

Civil Rights Act, M.G.L. c. 12, § 11I, and the Constitution and common law of the Commonwealth

of Massachusetts. Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 provide federal question jurisdiction over all

federal claims, and Plaintiff invokes this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28. U.S.C.

§ 1367(a), over any and all state law claims and as against all parties that are so related to claims in

this action within the original jurisdiction of this Court that they form part of the same case and

controversy.

3. Venue in the District of Massachusetts is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §




3

1391(b), as Massachusetts is the judicial district in which all of the events giving rise to this claim

occurred and in which all of the Defendants either reside or conduct business.

NOTICE OF CLAIM

4. In accordance with M.G.L. c. 258 and M.G.L. c. 258 § 4, within two years after the

date upon which the cause of action arose, Mrs. O’Connell presented her claim in writing to the

Town Manager of Tewksbury, Richard Montouri, on or about December 30, 2014, which claim

was thereafter forwarded to Town of Tewksbury Legal Counsel, Kevin Feely. Six months have

passed since the presentment of Mrs. O’Connell’s claim to the Town Manager and Town Counsel

and neither has denied Mrs. O’Connell’s claim in writing. The failure of the Town Manager and

Town Counsel to deny Mrs. O’Connell’s claim within six months of presentment is deemed a final

denial of her claim, in accordance with M.G.L. c. 258 § 4.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Alice E. O’Connell is an individual citizen of the United States who was, at

all times relevant hereto, residing in the Town of Tewksbury, Middlesex County, Massachusetts.

6. Defendant Town of Tewksbury is a municipal entity duly organized and chartered

under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with its principle place of business at 1009

Main Street, Tewksbury, Middlesex County, Massachusetts.

7. Defendant Town of Tewksbury Police Department is a municipal government entity

duly created and organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a principal

place of business at 918 Main Street, Tewksbury, Middlesex County, Massachusetts.

8. Defendant Timothy Sheehan is the Chief of the Tewksbury Police Dept. (“Chief

Sheehan”) and is sued in his individual and official capacity. Chief Sheehan is a resident of the




4

Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was at all pertinent times a duly sworn police officer and the

Tewksbury Chief of Police.

9. Defendant John S. Voto is the Deputy Chief of the Tewksbury Police Dept.

(“Deputy Voto”) and is sued in his individual and official capacity. Deputy Voto is a resident of

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was at all pertinent times a duly sworn police officer and

the Tewksbury Deputy Chief of Police.

10. Defendant Lieutenant Robert Stephens (“Lt. Stevens”), who is sued in his

individual and official capacity, is a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was at all

pertinent times a duly sworn police officer of the Tewksbury Police Department.

11. Defendant Lieutenant Ryan Columbus (“Lt. Columbus”), who is sued in his



12. Defendant Sergeant Walter Jop, III (“Sgt. Jop”), who is sued in his individual and

official capacity, is a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was at all pertinent

times a duly sworn police officer of the Tewksbury Police Department.

13. Defendant Sergeant Brian Warren (“Sgt. Warren”), who is sued in his individual

and official capacity, is a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was at all pertinent


14. Defendant Officer Markus E. McMahon (“Ofc. McMahon”), who is sued in his



15. Defendant Officer Eric Hanley (“Ofc. Hanley”), who is sued in his individual and

official capacity, is a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was at all pertinent




5


16. Defendant Police Officers John Does ## 1 through 4, whose true identities are not

presently known but may be ascertained during discovery, who are sued in their individual and

official capacities, were at all pertinent times duly sworn police officers of the Tewksbury Police

Department.

FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

17. Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

18. At all relevant times hereto, the Town of Tewksbury was the employer of each

individual Defendant.

19. At all relevant times hereto, Defendant Timothy Sheehan, as Chief of Police,

exercised authority over the Tewksbury Police Dept. and its officers and was a maker of policy as

to standards of conduct and discipline within the Tewksbury Police Dept. Chief Sheehan had the

power to train and discipline officers and the power, authority and duty to hold officers

accountable for any use of excessive, abusive, unjustified and/or unlawful police authority or

power and for the making of false statements of fact in official reports.

20. At all pertinent times hereto, each individual Defendant acted under color of state

law in his capacity as a police officer and/or policy maker of the Town of Tewksbury and pursuant

to the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, practices, and usage of the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts and/or the Town of Tewksbury.

21. Each of the above named Defendants are specifically identified and/or mentioned in

police reports and/or police records and/or police recordings as active participants in the incidents

described herein.




6

22. Defendant Police Officers John Does ## 1 through 4 were active participants in the

incidents described herein.

23. Mrs. O’Connell was born in 1930. Mrs. O’Connell was 82 years old when she was

unlawfully arrested and 83 years old at other times relevant hereto.

24. On Friday, May 24, 2013, Mrs. O’Connell called 911 from her home, fearing for

her safety, telling the Tewksbury police dispatcher that her out of control husband was raising his

fists to her again. Mrs. O’Connell requested that her husband be removed from the house.

25. Ofc. McMahon, Sgt. Jop, Lt. Columbus and Ofc. Hanley responded to Mrs.

O’Connell’s residence at 75 North Billerica Road, where she allowed them entry into the premises.

26. Ofc. McMahon completed the original police report relating to this incident and the

Tewksbury Police Dept. response thereto (“Police Report”), dated May 24, 2013.

27. The Police Report indicates that the officers were dispatched for an “out of control

elderly man”.

28. The Police Report indicates that Mrs. O’Connell met them upon arrival, stating that

her husband (Thomas) was out of control and needed to be removed from the house.

29. In accordance with established policies and procedures of the Tewksbury Police

Dept., Mrs. O’Connell’s request for assistance was treated from the outset as a criminal matter

rather than a request for assistance.

30. After the responding police officers entered the premises, Mrs. O’Connell was

directed to go to specific room within her home where she was questioned by Sgt. Jop and other

police officers who were present.

31. Neither Sgt. Jop nor any other police officer suggested to Mrs. O’Connell that she

was suspected of criminal conduct, nor did Sgt. Jop or any other police officer advise Mrs.

O’Connell of her Miranda r ights prior to questioning her.




7

32. Without Miranda warnings, Sgt. Jop and the police officers who were present began

asking Mrs. O’Connell questions about what had occurred prior to the police officers’ arrival.

33. Mrs. O’Connell informed the police officers that her husband, Thomas, was

suffering from advanced Alzheimer’s disease, having been diagnosed with the disease years ago.

34. Mrs. O’Connell informed the police officers that she was Thomas’s sole caregiver

and that Thomas was becoming increasingly physical with her during any disagreements they would

have.

35. The Police Report states that Mrs. O’Connell informed Sgt. Jop and the police

officers who were present that Thomas suffers from Alzheimer’s disease and she was afraid that

Thomas might punch her in the mouth.

36. Although denied by Mrs. O’Connell, the Police Report also indicates that Mrs.

O’Connell told the police officers who were present that “she would stab Thomas in the stomach

with a knife if she had to” 9emphasis added) without providing any context for that statement

which she allegedly made to the police.

37.

The Police Report indicates that the totality of the alleged harm to Thomas was a

scratch on his wrist.

38. The Police Report states that the alleged victim [Thomas] indicated to police that

Mrs. O’Connell “grabbed his arms very tightly and scratched him causing the bleeding to his right

wrist area”.

39. The Police Report omitted the context of Mrs. O’Connell grabbing Thomas’s arms,

which context Mrs. O’Connell supplied during her questioning when she told the police officers who

were present that Thomas was coming towards her and she grabbed his arms to restrain him from

hurting her.




8

40. No medical treatment for Thomas was requested or required to tend to his scratched

wrist.

41. Although Sgt. Jop was asking Mrs. O’Connell what had occurred between herself

and Thomas prior to his arrival, he was not listening to what she was telling him.

42. Sgt. Jop continually interrupted Mrs. O’Connell, making inaccurate and false

statements about the events which took place prior to his arrival (to which he was not a witness).

43. Sgt. Jop continually disagreed with the statements being made by Mrs. O’Connell

and was continually trying to put words in her mouth which were not true and which she did not

say.

44. Throughout the interrogation by Sgt. Jop, Mrs. O’Connell consistently and

unequivocally denied that she had harmed her husband in any way and continually stated that she

was not aware of any harm done to Thomas’s wrist.

45. Sgt. Jop engaged Mrs. O’Connell in an argument relating to the events which took

place prior to his arrival rather than simply asking her questions about what had occurred.

46.

During her interrogation, Mrs. O’Connell informed Sgt. Jop that she objected to the

false statements he was making about what had transpired prior to his arrival.

47. During her interrogation, Mrs. O’Connell told Sgt. Jop to stop putting words in her

mouth which were not true and which she did not say.

48. In response to Mrs. O’Connell’s stated objection to his wrongful conduct, Sgt. Jop

told Mrs. O’Connell that she was being “awfully pushy”.

49. When Mrs. O’Connell responded that he was the one being pushy, Sgt. Jop

retaliated by immediately approaching her, grasping her by the arm and forcibly turning her around

by one arm while placing handcuffs on her without telling her why he was doing so.




9

50. Mrs. O’Connell told Sgt. Jop that she did not do anything and asked him what he

was doing.

51. Sgt. Jop told her to be quiet but he did not answer her questions.

52. In further retaliation, Sgt. Jop intentionally placed the handcuffs on Mrs. O’Connell

in a manner which was extremely tight.

53. Mrs. O’Connell immediately told Sgt. Jop and the other officers that her wrists were

hurting her.

54. Another police officer who was present suggested to Sgt. Jop that he use different

handcuffs than the ones which he had placed on Mrs. O’Connell as they were very tight and her

wrists were turning red.

55. Sgt. Jop ignored this suggestion and told the other police officer to just put Mrs.

O’Connell in the car.

56. Sgt. Job secured the handcuffs so tightly on Mrs. O’Connell’s wrists that they

caused numbness to her arms and wrists, pain and redness.

57.

Without containing any information regarding Sgt. Jop’s argumentative and

taunting interactions with Mrs. O’Connell prior to his arresting her, the Police Report states only

that “while asking Mrs. O’Connell questions in regards to the events that had taken place, she

became very agitated and loud with us and demanded we take her husband away.”

58. Without containing any information regarding Sgt. Jop’s argumentative and

taunting interactions with Mrs. O’Connell prior to his arresting her, the Police Report states only

that “[d]uring this time, Mrs. O’Connell was placed under arrest for domestic A&B on her husband

Thomas”.




10

59. Neither Sgt. Jop nor any of the other police officers at the scene had a warrant or

probable cause for Mrs. O’Connell’s arrest.

60. Mrs. O’Connell and Thomas had been married for 57 years at the time of this

incident.

61. Mrs. O’Connell had been Thomas’s sole caregiver since he was diagnosed with

Alzheimer’s, approximately five years prior to the time of this incident.

62. Thomas was not requesting that Mrs. O’Connell be arrested.

63. Sgt. Jop arrested Mrs. O’Connell despite the fact that the scratch on Thomas’s wrist

was more consistent with Mrs. O’Connell defending herself against Thomas’s approach, as she had

stated.

64. Sgt. Jop arrested Mrs. O’Connell despite the fact that he had been informed that

Thomas was suffering from advanced Alzheimer’s disease and that Mrs. O’Connell was afraid that

Thomas might punch her in the mouth.

65. Sgt. Jop’s determination that probable cause existed to arrest Mrs. O’Connell was

contrary to the credible information and evidence which existed at the scene of the incident and

which was brought to the attention of Sgt. Jop prior to his decision to arrest Mrs. O’Connell.

66. Sgt. Jop arrested Mrs. O’Connell after engaging in an argument with her and telling

her that she was being “awfully pushy” for verbally disagreeing with and opposing his wrongful

conduct and his false statements regarding what had occurred between Thomas and Mrs.

O’Connell prior to Sgt. Jop’s arrival.

67. Sgt. Jop’s arrest of Mrs. O’Connell was based not upon probable cause but was

instead motivated by Mrs. O’Connell verbal objections to his wrongful behavior.




11

68. There were no witnesses to the alleged assault of Thomas, which took place prior to

the arrival of the police officers, other than Mrs. O’Connell and Thomas (who was suffering from

advanced Alzheimer’s disease and exhibited memory loss symptoms at the scene).

69. Neither Sgt. Jop nor any other police officer present at the scene would tell Mrs.

O’Connell why she was being arrested, despite her numerous requests.

70. After her arrest, Mrs. O’Connell told Sgt. Jop that she would sue him for arresting

her because she did not do anything wrong and it was not right that she was being arrested.

71. The statements made by Mrs. O’Connell at her home while being questioned by

Sgt. Jop and the other police officers were subsequently used against Mrs. O’Connell in court in

the prosecution of the criminal charges against her.

72. Following Sgt. Jop’s wrongful arrest of Mrs. O’Connell, in their efforts to protect a

fellow police officer from the consequences of his wrongful conduct, and in retaliation for her

verbally objecting to Sgt. Jop’s wrongful actions and in retaliation for her statements that she

would sue him for wrongfully arresting her, the named Defendants thereafter took action to ensure

that Mrs. O’Connell would be prosecuted to the greatest extent possible, since Mrs. O’Connell’s

conviction of a criminal offense would validate the original unlawful arrest.

BOOKING

73. The booking of Mrs. O’Connell was recorded by the Tewksbury Police Dept. by

means of a video/audio recorder.

74. Upon arrival at the Tewksbury police station for her booking, Mrs. O’Connell

repeatedly told the police officers present that the handcuffs were hurting her.

75. When the handcuffs were taken off of Mrs. O’Connell in the police station, Mrs.

O’Connell told the police officers who were present to look at her hand, telling them that the




12

handcuffs nearly broke it.

76. Lt. Stephens conducted the booking of Mrs. O’Connell.

77. The Police Report Narrative (prepared by Ofc. McMahon) falsely states that “Lt.

Stephens … advised the subject of her rights.”

78. The Police Report falsely indicates that Lt. Robert A. Stephens advised Mrs.

O’Connell of her rights on 5/24/2013 at 1226.

79. While being held in custody and questioned by Tewksbury police officers during

her booking and subsequent imprisonment, Mrs. O’Connell was never advised of her Miranda

rights.

80. The Police Report falsely indicates that Mrs. O’Connell used the telephone to make

a call on 5/24/2013 at 1226.

81.

While being held in custody and questioned by Tewksbury police officers during

her booking and subsequent imprisonment, Mrs. O’Connell was never informed of her statutory

right to use the telephone while being detained by the Tewksbury police and was not permitted to

use the telephone to call her attorney (or anyone else).

82. During her booking and during the entire time of her imprisonment, the Tewksbury

police officers continued speaking with and questioning Mrs. O’Connell without advising her of

her Miranda rights, with the intent of using the statements made by Mrs. O’Connell against her in

criminal proceedings.

83. In fact, Lt. Stevens, the booking officer, prepared a Supplemental Narrative For

Lieutenant Robert A. Stephens (“Supplemental Narrative”) which was later added to the original

Police Report, which contained a one-sided, out-of-context recitation of each and every statement

made by Mrs. O’Connell during her booking and imprisonment which could possibly be used




13

against her, all of which statements were made without the advisement of Miranda rights or the

benefit of a phone call.

SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE

84. The Supplemental Narrative indicates that it was completed on “5/28/2013” which

was four days following the incident and the morning of Mrs. O’Connell’s scheduled arraignment.

85. Upon information and belief, Lt. Stephens completed the Supplemental Narrative

after viewing and listening to the recorded booking of Mrs. O’Connell, which occurred on May 24,

2013.

86.

When composing the Supplemental Narrative, Lt. Stephens selectively included

each and every statement made by Mrs. O’Connell during her imprisonment by the Tewksbury

Police Dept. which could by negatively construed against her, without including the context of any

of those statements, which statements were all made without her being advised of her Miranda

rights and without being given the benefit of a phone call.

87. The Supplemental Narrative subjectively states that Mrs. O’Connell was “in a very

agitated state when she arrived at Tewksbury Headquarters.”

88. The Supplemental Narrative fails to include the stated source of her alleged

agitation, which she repeatedly tells the police officers was based upon the fact that she had been

wrongfully arrested and she had not been notified as to why she was arrested or why she was being

detained by the Tewksbury Police Dept. after calling them for assistance with her out-of-control

husband.

89. The Supplemental Narrative subjectively states that Mrs. O’Connell “was making

threats of suing the police officers that arrested her and making fun of them.”

90. The Supplemental Report does not provide the context of the alleged threats to sue

or Mrs. O’Connell’s “making fun of” any officers.




14

91. During her booking, Mrs. O’Connell did state that she would be suing the officer

who falsely arrested her because she should not have been arrested.

92. Sgt. Jop, the officer who had engaged in argumentative and taunting behavior

towards Mrs. O’Connell prior to wrongfully arresting her, was present at the Tewksbury police

station during Mrs. O’Connell’s booking and at various times would stand in the doorway of the

booking area and smile at Mrs. O’Connell.

93. At the time of her arrest and booking, Mrs. O’Connell did not know the name of the

police officer who arrested her. When speaking to the other police officers who were present about

suing the officer who falsely arrested her, she referred to him as “the big fat guy” and “the guy that

was causing all the problems”.

94. In response, an as yet unidentified police officer who was present questioned Mrs.

O’Connell by asking her to whom she was referring. When Mrs. O’Connell r esponded by pointing

to and identifying the police officer who arrested her who was standing in the doorway, the police

officer who posed the question to her informed another as yet unidentified police officer who was

present that it was “Sergeant Jop.”

95. Mrs. O’Connell stated to the police officers who were present that “[h]e thinks he’s

gonna get away with it but he’s not,” or words to that effect, to which an officer present at the

scene asked “Who?”

96. The Supplemental Narrative subjectively states that during booking Mrs. O’Connell

then “became angry at her husband, (Thomas O’Connell) blaming him for being arrested. She

stated that she was not going to be nice anymore and that he better not be at the house when she is

released. She further stated that he will be sorry and she isn’t going to be nice anymore. She further

stated that she was not going to feed him and see how he likes that.”




15

97. The Supplemental Narrative fails to include the fact that Mrs. O’Connell told the

police officers present at the booking, including Lt. Stevens, the author of the Supplemental

Narrative, that “I’m just mad” to which Lt. Stephens replies to Mrs. O’Connell “I’d be mad if I

was arrested too.”

98. The Supplemental Narrative falsely states that Mrs. O’Connell was “uncooperative,

argumentative…”

99. To the contrary, Mrs. O’Connell obeyed all of the police officer directives,

answered all questions posed to her and engaged in continual conversation with the officers

present.

100. During the entire booking process, there were potentially only two instances which

could possibly be construed as Mrs. O’Connell being "uncooperative and argumentative”.

101. The first instance was when Mrs. O’Connell initially did not want to take off her

religious cross necklace based on its religious significance to her but she then agreed to do so once

she was assured it would be kept safe.

102.

The other instance was when Lt. Stephens asked Mrs. O’Connell “Do you want to

take a picture?” to which Mrs. O’Connell responded “No. Forget it, I don’t want no pictures.”

103. Mrs. O’Connell was not thereafter directed to have her picture taken.

104. During her booking, Lt. Stephens, while speaking to Mrs. O’Connell, tells her “this

isn’t a big crime” downplaying the seriousness of the situation, all the while intending to compose

a Supplemental Narrative containing any and all statements she made which could possibly be

negatively construed against her to be used to prosecute criminal charges against her in court.

105. The Supplemental Report did not contain the facts that during booking: (a) Mrs.

O’Connell repeatedly stated that her wrists were injured due to the overly-tight handcuffs and




16

repeatedly told officers to look at her injured wrists, stating in one instance “Look at my hand.

Holy God, they nearly broke it”; (b) Mrs. O’Connell repeatedly stated that she was not told why

she was arrested; (c) Mrs. O’Connell repeatedly stated that she did not do anything to hurt her

husband, stating that she pushed him away; and (d) Mrs. O’Connell repeatedly stated that the

police officers who were at her home would not show her the alleged injury to her husband (a

scratch on his wrist).

106. After repeatedly asking why she was arrested, an officer present during the booking

told Mrs. O’Connell that her husband had a cut on his arm.

107.

Each and every alleged statement made by Mrs. O’Connell which Lt. Stevens

included in the subjective, one-sided, out-of-context, Supplemental Narrative was made by Mrs.

O’Connell while in police custody, without being advised of her Miranda rights and without being

advised of her statutory right to use the telephone.

108. Each and every alleged statement made by Mrs. O’Connell which Lt. Stevens

included in the subjective, one-sided, out-of-context, Supplemental Narrative was used against

Mrs. O’Connell in court when the prosecuting attorney later read Lt. Steven’s Supplemental

Narrative to the Court during her arraignment.

109. After booking, at or about 1300, Mrs. O’Connell was then locked in a holding cell

at the Tewksbury police station.

110. After locking Mrs. O’Connell in the holding cell and when walking into the

adjoining room where Sgt. Jop was located, an as yet unidentified police officer who had engaged

in discussions with Mrs. O’Connell during her booking and who was entrusted with her care refers

to Mrs. O’Connell as a “lunatic” when speaking with another as yet unidentified officer, both of

whom were present during the booking and imprisonment of Mrs. O’Connell.




17

PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION

111. At or about 2:45 p.m., while peacefully remaining locked in the holding cell, Mrs.

O’Connell was approached by and once again handcuffed by an as yet unidentified Tewksbury

police officer and was brought, via ambulance, to Lowell General Hospital – Saints Campus, to

undergo an unwarranted psychiatric evaluation.

112. Mrs. O’Connell did not request or consent to this psychiatric evaluation.

113. While at Lowell General Hospital, Mrs. O’Connell remained handcuffed, much of

the time handcuffed to a stretcher, with a Tewksbury police officer by her side, all within the

public view.

114. The intake nurse at Lowell General Hospital indicates in her medical report

(“Medical Report”) that “apparently patient was arrested today for stabbing her husband who has

Alzheimers. Patient denies stabbing her husband….”

115. It was not Mrs. O’Connell who told the intake nurse that she had been arrested that

day for “stabbing her husband”.

116.

Upon information and belief, it was an as yet unidentified Tewksbury police officer

who falsely informed the intake nurse that Mrs. O’Connell had been arrested that day for “stabbing

her husband”.

117. The Tewksbury police officer falsely informed the intake nurse that Mrs. O’Connell

had stabbed her husband that day in an effort to lead the intake nurse and other medical personnel

conducting Mrs. O’Connell’s psychiatric evaluation to believe that Mrs. O’Connell was violent

and homicidal in order to have Mrs. O’Connell involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility

based upon her alleged likelihood to hurt others if left unrestrained.

118. If the medical personnel conducting Mrs. O’Connell’s psychiatric examination had

determined that she was violent or homicidal that day, then this finding would have helped the




18

Tewksbury police officers in their efforts to ensure that Mrs. O’Connell was convicted of a

criminal charge, thereby validating their wrongful arrest, imprisonment and malicious prosecution

of her.

119. Mrs. O’Connell did not stab her husband.

120. The Police Report does not state that a knife was used to harm Mrs. O’Connell’s

husband or that Mrs. O’Connell had stabbed her husband on that day.

121. The Medical Report states that Mrs. O’Connell told the nurse that the police came

to the house and the police told her [Mrs. O’Connell] that her husband had a knife wound to his

hand.

122. The Medical Report states that Mrs. O’Connell denied stabbing her husband with a

knife.

123. The Medical Report describes Mrs. O’Connell as cooperative and pleasant.

124. The Lowell General Hospital medical personnel who conducted Mrs. O’Connell’s

psychiatric evaluation that day determined that she was not suicidal, homicidal or psychotic.

125.

After receiving a mental health and medical clearance from Lowell General

Hospital medical personnel, Mrs. O’Connell was then transported back to the Tewksbury police

station, where she was again locked in a holding cell.

126. Mrs. O’Connell was released on her personal recognizance at or about 8:00 p.m. on

May 24, 2013, after posting bail and agreeing to appear at Lowell District Court at 8:30 on May

28, 2013, for her arraignment.

CHARGES AND ARRAIGNMENT

127. On or about May 24, 2013, Sgt. Warren requested that a criminal complaint issue

against Mrs. O’Connell charging her with Domestic Assault and Battery against her husband,




19

Thomas O’Connell, by use of her “Personal Weapons (Hands/Feet/Etc.)” and with making a

Threat to Commit a crime, based upon the incident which occurred at her home on May 24, 2013.

128. Sgt. Warren swore out the complaint stating that on May 24, 2013, Mrs. O’Connell

did assault and beat Thomas O’Connell, in violation of G.L. c.265 sec. 13(a), even though he knew

that to be false.

129. Sgt. Warren swore out the complaint stating that on May 24, 2013, Mrs. O’Connell

did threaten to commit a crime against the person or property of another, to wit: to Stab, in

violation of G.L. c. 275 sec. 2, even though he knew that to be false.

130. On the morning of May 28, 2013, Mrs. O’Connell arrived at the assigned courtroom

at Lowell District Court for her scheduled arraignment, which was the Tuesday morning following

the long Memorial Day Weekend.

131. Sgt. Warren was also present in the courtroom where the scheduled arraignments

would take place.

132. As the court personnel and gallery waited for the judge’s arrival to begin the

scheduled arraignments, Sgt. Warren, in a loud voice which could be heard by all of those present

in the courtroom, commented in a joking manner to court personnel about the holiday weekend

that had just passed, laughing and stating that “[i]t was a wild weekend, we had elderly people

beating on each other …” or words to that effect.

133. During her arraignment, Mrs. O’Connell was charged with Assault and Battery and

making a Threat to Commit a Crime.

134. The Assault and Battery charge resulted from an alleged scratch to Thomas’s arm.

135. The Threat to Commit a Crime charge resulted from an alleged statement made by

Mrs. O’Connell to the police while being questioned by the police at her home.




20

136. The alleged threat, as stated in the Police R eport was a follows: “Mrs. O’Connell

also noted that Thomas suffers from Alzheimer’s disease and was afraid that Thomas might punch

her in the mouth. Mrs. O’Connell also stated that she would stab Thomas in the stomach with a

knife if she had too [sic].”

137. The Police Report does not indicate that Mrs. O’Connell ever made a threat to stab

Thomas without legal justification.

138. At Mrs. O’Connell’s arraignment, the prosecuting Assistant District Attorney read

selected portions of the Police Report and the Supplemental Narrative prepared by Lt. Stevens to

the presiding judge in her efforts to criminally prosecute Mrs. O’Connell.

139. Mrs. O’Connell pled Not Guilty during her arraignment on the baseless charges.

140. Following her arraignment, a lengthy newspaper article titled “Tewksbury Woman,

82, Faces Assault Charges Against Husband, 87” was published in the Lowell Sun newspaper, which

repeated much of the information contained within the original Police Report and the Supplemental

Narrative.

141.

Mrs. O’Connell has been a resident of Tewksbury for over 50 years.

142. Mrs. O’Connell’s wrongful arrest and imprisonment, the unwarranted psychiatric

evaluation, and the publication of the newspaper article, which repeated many of the subjective, one-

sided, out-of-context statements made within the Police Report and the Supplemental Narrative

caused Mrs. O’Connell great stress and humiliation in her community.

143. Mrs. O’Connell was required to retain a defense attorney, incur legal and other

expenses, and to appear in court on several occasions to defend against the false arrest and

imprisonment and the malicious prosecution of charges.

144. Although Mrs. O’Connell knew she was innocent, she was fearful that she could be

convicted of the false charges.




21

145. Since there was no evidence to support the Assault and Battery charge, the

Commonwealth eventually agreed to dismiss the Assault and Battery charge against Mrs.

O’Connell.

146. On August 21, 2013, Mrs. O’Connell submitted a Motion to Dismiss the remaining

Threat to Commit a Crime charged based on the fact that “the information presented by the

complainant [Sgt. Warren] does not establish probable cause to believe that the defendant [Mrs.

O’Connell] committed a criminal offense and that the Application for Complaint filed by the

Tewksbury Police Department does not contain sufficient basis for the Complaint to have issued.”

147.

After hearing on August 23, 2013, the Court granted Mrs. O’Connell’s Motion and

dismissed the Threat to Commit a Crime charge based upon the lack of probable cause.

148. On October 7, 2013, the Court reaffirmed its prior dismissal of the Threat to

Commit a Crime charge following another hearing on the Commonwealth’s Motion for

Reconsideration.

149. During the criminal proceeding, prior to the dismissal of the charges against her,

Mrs. O’Connell was very disturbed to learn that Tewksbury police officers had falsely stated in the

Police Report that she had been advised of her Miranda rights and that she had used the telephone

during her detainment because she knew those stated facts to be false.

150. In her effort to attack the credibility of the Tewksbury policer officers who were

making statements against her and to defend herself against what appeared to be the Tewksbury

Police Department’s efforts to secure a wrongful conviction against her, Mrs. O’Connell sought

evidence to show that the Tewksbury police officers made false statements in the Police Report.

FAILURE TO PROVIDE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

151. The Police Report falsely indicates that Mrs. O’Connell was read her Miranda




22

rights on 05/24/2013 at 1226 and that she used the telephone on 05/24/2013 at 1226, prior to being

secured at 1300.

152. During the criminal proceedings against Mrs. O’Connell, on or about July 25, 2013,

the Court granted Mrs. O’Connell’s Motion for Preservation of Evidence and Pr oduction of

Evidence, wherein Mrs. O’Connell requested evidence including but not limited to all documents,

911 tapes, booking tapes, tapes of recorded telephone calls and videotapes relating to the May 24,

2013, arrest of Mrs. O’Connell and her subsequent detainment.

153. During the criminal proceedings against Mrs. O’Connell, on or about August 7,

2013, Mrs. O’Connell forwarded to Sgt. Warren at the Tewksbury Police Dept. the Motion for

Preservation of Evidence and the Motion for Production of Evidence which had been allowed by

the Court, requesting that she be provided with the requested evidence.

154. This request and the accompanying Court orders were ignored by the Tewksbury

Police Dept., which did not respond to the request and failed to produce any of the requested

evidence to Mrs. O’Connell.

155.

Following the dismissal of the charges against Mrs. O’Connell, still bothered by the

fact that the Tewksbury police officers had made false statements against her, on or about April 10,

2014, Mrs. O’Connell requested the same documents which she had previously requested during

the criminal proceedings against her, this time making a Massachusetts Public Records Request

addressed to the Keeper of Records of the Tewksbury Police Dept. This Public Records Request

also requested any evidence of the advisement of Mrs. O’Connell’s Miranda r ights and any

evidence related to the availability of a telephone for her use during her imprisonment.

156. On or about May 16, 2014, in response to the Public Records Request, Deputy

Chief Voto, of the Tewksbury Police Dept., provided the audio recording of the 911 call which




23

Mrs. O’Connell made to the Tewksbury Police Dept. on May 24, 2013, wherein Mrs. O’Connell

requested assistance with her out of control husband.

157. However, Deputy Voto did not produce the booking video, explaining in his

response “[a]s far as the booking video, which involves most of your request I was unable to obtain

this video. As you were told on the phone the week of your request the person responsible for the

records of the booking video has been on Medical Leave for approximately two months. I was able

to coordinate with him, to research this matter. After he researched the incident (May 24, 2013) he

found that the video from that period was not saved due to some technical difficulties. Therefore I

am unable to produce this video because I do not have it.”

158. The 911 audio tape which was produced confirms that Ms. O’Connell called the

police, fearing for her safety, requesting that her husband, Tom, be removed from the house right

away. She told the dispatcher that Tom had Alzheimer’s and that he was putting his fists up to her

again. She stated that if he kicked her or anything again she would hit him with something. She

reiterated that she wanted him out of the house.

159.

On or about June 3, 2013, in response to Deputy Voto’s failure to produce the

booking video, Mrs. O’Connell then requested specific information about the technical difficulties

relating to the missing booking video (specifically “Could you please provide further information

regarding the technical difficulties which resulted in the Department’s inability to produce this

information? What technical difficulties? Did the technical difficulties occur before, during or after

Mr. O’Connell’s booking? Was the booking ever recorded? Did the technical difficulties span a

longer period of time or only during the time of Ms. O’Connell’s booking?”) and requested the

telephone records which pertained to the phone used by Mr s. O’Connell to place her telephone call

(specifically “Since the booking tape is not available, please provide the telephone records which




24

pertain to the telephone used by Ms. O’Connell to place her telephone call while being detained at

the Tewksbury Police Department on 05/24/2013 at 1226 (i.e. information relating to the telephone

number which she called)”.

160. Mrs. O’Connell was never provided with any information regarding the telephone

call which she allegedly made from the police station or the facts regarding the alleged booking

tape technical difficulties, but by some means unknown to Mrs. O’Connell, Deputy Voto was

thereafter able to overcome the technical difficulties and locate the booking tape, which was then

provided to Mrs. O’Connell.

161.

On or about July 30, 2014, after her review of the booking tape did not corroborate

the Tewksbury police officers’ statements in the Police Report that she was read her Miranda

rights or that she made a telephone call during her booking and detainment, Mrs. O’Connell once

again requested the that the Tewksbury Police Dept. provide her with information relating to the

telephone call which she purportedly made during her imprisonment.

162. By letter dated August 20, 2014, Deputy Voto responded that he had researched all

the items that Mrs. O’Connell had requested, stating that “[a]s per your request, I was unable to

find any outgoing call from your client while she was at the Tewksbury Police Department.”

163. Despite numerous requests by Mrs. O’Connell and despite purported searches

conducted by the Tewksbury Police Dept., the Tewksbury Police Dept. has not been able to

provide any evidence which corroborates that Mrs. O’Connell was read her Miranda rights during

her booking, that she was informed of her statutory right to make a telephone call during her

imprisonment, or that she made a telephone call during her detainment.




25

164. In fact, all available evidence corroborates Mrs. O’Connell’s statements that she

was not read her Miranda rights, that she was not told that she could make a telephone call and that

she did not make a telephone call, as falsely alleged by the Tewksbury police officers.

165. The Tewksbury Police Dept. and its police officers failed to provide this

exculpatory evidence to Mrs. O’Connell during the criminal proceedings against her.

166. Defendants’ unlawful actions described herein were done willfully, knowingly and

with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiff of her constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth

and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

167.

As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendants, Mrs. O’Connell suffered

injuries, damages, great pain and suffering, severe mental anguish, emotional distress, shock,

fright, infliction of physical trauma and illness, severe anxiety, sleeplessness, gastrointestinal

problems, significant weight loss, humiliation, indignities and embarrassment, degradation, injury

to reputation and loss of enjoyment of activities with family and others.

168. Mrs. O’Connell remains upset that she was wrongfully arrested and falsely charged

with crimes she did not commit.

COUNT I

Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983

(All Defendants and Does ## 1 through 4)


170. By unlawfully arresting and imprisoning Mrs. O’Connell without a warrant or

probable cause because she verbally objected to Sgt. Jop’s wrongful conduct and because she

stated to the Tewksbury police officers that she would sue the Tewksbury police officer who

unlawfully arrested her, the Defendants named herein violated Mrs. O’Connell’s clearly




26

established constitutional rights to engage in protected free speech without being subjected to

retaliation, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

171. By unlawfully arresting Mrs. O’Connell using unreasonable force, without a

warrant or probable cause, by falsely imprisoning her, by forcing her to undergo an unwarranted

psychiatric evaluation while in police custody, and by maliciously causing her to be prosecuted,

the Defendants named herein deprived Mrs. O’Connell of the clearly established right to due

process of law, the right to be secure in her person and property and to be free from unreasonable

searches and seizures, guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution.

172. By unlawfully coercing statements from Mrs. O’Connell which were used against

her in court, the Defendants named herein deprived Mrs. O’Connell of the clearly established right

not to be compelled to be a witness against herself, guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

173. As a direct and proximate result the Defendants’ conduct, Mrs. O’Connell suffered

the damages described herein.

COUNT II

Civil Conspiracy to Violate 42 U.S.C. §1983

(Defendants Chief Sheehan, Deputy Chief Voto, Lt. Stephens, Lt. Columbus,

Sgt. Jop, Sgt. Warren, Ofc. McMahon, Ofc. Hanley, Does ## 1 through 4)


175.

By their actions set forth above, Defendants Chief Sheehan, Deputy Chief Voto, Lt.

Stephens, Lt. Columbus, Sgt. Jop, Sgt. Warren, Ofc. McMahon, Ofc. Hanley, and Does ## 1

through 4 knowingly, willfully and intentionally conspired to and did deprive Mrs. O’Connell of

her clearly established rights guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to




27

the United States Constitution and Articles 12 and 16 of the Declaration of Rights of the

Massachusetts Constitution. In furtherance of this conspiracy, Defendants falsely arrested and

imprisoned Mrs. O’Connell, unlawfully coerced statements from her while she was in police

custody which would be used against her in court, subjected her to unwarranted psychological

evaluation, distorted facts, made false statements about the events which took place, created

unsubstantiated criminal charges against Mrs. O’Connell, assisted in the prosecution of

unsubstantiated criminal charges against Mrs. O’Connell, and failed to disclose exculpatory

evidence to Mrs. O’Connell during the criminal proceedings against her, all for the purpose of

depriving Mrs. O’Connell of her clearly established constitutional rights and then covering up their

deprivation of Mrs. O’Connell’s clearly established constitutional rights.



COUNT III

42 U.S.C. §1983 – Supervisory Liability

(Town of Tewksbury, Tewksbury Police Dept. and Chief Sheehan)


178. The Town of Tewksbury, the Tewksbury Police Dept. and Chief Sheehan are

responsible for the training, supervision and discipline of the Tewksbury police officers, including

the Defendants named in this Complaint.

179. The Town of Tewksbury, Tewksbury Police Dept. and Chief Sheehan, with reckless

and callous indifference to the violation of individual rights, failed to provide the Tewksbury

police officers, including the Defendants named in this Complaint, with adequate training and

supervision with respect to the Tewksbury police officers’ actions in situations including, but not

limited to: (a) their response to an individual’s request for assistance; (b) the proper investigation




28

and resolution of domestic disagreements; (c) their response to individuals suffering from

Alzheimer’s disease and their caretakers; (d) the lawful arrest and detainment of individuals; (e)

the use of proper force when arresting and detaining individuals; (f) the lawful interrogation of

individuals within their custody; (g) the statutory and constitutional rights of individuals within

their custody; (h) the appropriateness of taking individuals in their custody for psychological

evaluation; (i) the truthful completion of police reports and official records; (j) the required

elements of crimes which are included in the police officers’ Complaint Applications; and (k) the

obligation of the Tewksbury police officers to disclose exculpatory evidence (including evidence

which reflects on credibility) to criminal defendants during criminal proceedings.

180. By their failure to train and supervise the Defendant police officers named within

this Complaint, the Town of Tewksbury, Tewksbury Police Dept. and Chief Sheehan caused the

various Defendants named within this Complaint to unlawfully arrest and imprison Mrs.

O’Connell without a warrant or probable cause, to wrongfully subject her to unwarranted

psychological evaluation, to deny her statutory rights while in police custody, and to unlawfully

coerce statements from her which were used against her in court, all in retaliation for her verbal

objections to the wrongful conduct of Sgt. Jop and in retaliation for her statement that she would

sue the police officer who wrongfully arrested her, all in violation of her rights under the First,

Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.



COUNT IV

42 U.S.C. §1983 – Monell Claim

(Town of Tewksbury, Tewksbury Police Dept. and Chief Sheehan)





29

183. Prior to May 24, 2013, the Town of Tewksbury, the Tewksbury Police Dept. and

Chief Sheehan developed and maintained policies or customs with deliberate indifference to the

constitutional rights of persons in Tewksbury, which caused violations of Mrs. O’Connell’s

constitutional rights.

184. It was the policy, practice and/or custom of the Town of Tewksbury, Tewksbury

Police Dept. and Chief Sheehan to inadequately supervise, monitor and train its police officers,

including the Defendants named in this Complaint, with respect to the Tewksbury police officers’

actions in situations including, but not limited to: (a) their response to an individual’s request for

assistance; (b) the proper investigation and resolution of domestic disagreements; (c) their response

to individuals suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and their caretakers; (d) the lawful arrest and

detainment of individuals; (e) the use of proper force when arresting and detaining individuals; (f)

the lawful interrogation of individuals within their custody; (g) the statutory and constitutional

rights of individuals within their custody; (h) the appropriateness of taking individuals in their

custody for psychological evaluation; (i) the truthful completion of police reports and official

records; (j) the required elements of crimes which are included in the police officers’ Complaint

Applications; and (k) their obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence (including evidence which

reflects on credibility) to criminal defendants during criminal proceedings.

185. It was the policy, practice and/or custom of the Town of Tewksbury, Tewksbury

Police Dept. and Chief Sheehan to condone and permit its police officers, including the Defendants

named in this complaint, to unlawfully arrest and imprison individuals without a warrant or

probable cause; to use excessive force when arresting individuals; to conduct unlawful

interrogations of individuals; to unlawfully coerce statements from individuals which are used

against them in court; to fail to advise individuals within their custody of their statutory right to use




30

the telephone while being detained; to subject individuals to unwarranted psychiatric evaluation

while in police custody; to falsify police reports and official records; to maliciously prosecute

individuals; and to fail to provide exculpatory evidence to criminal defendants during criminal

proceedings.

186. The policy, practice and/or custom of the Town of Tewksbury, Tewksbury Police

Dept. and Chief Sheehan in failing to train and supervise its police officers and in condoning and

encouraging the police conduct set forth above caused the Defendants named in this Complaint to

unlawfully arrest and imprison Mrs. O’Connell without a warrant or probable cause; to use

excessive force when arresting Mrs. O’Connell; to conduct unlawful interrogations of Mrs.

O’Connell; to unlawfully coerce statements from Mrs. O’Connell which are used against her in

court; to fail to advise Mrs. O’Connell of her statutory right to use the telephone while being

detained; to subject Mrs. O’Connell to unwarranted psychiatric evaluation while in police custody;

to falsify police reports and official records; to maliciously prosecute Mrs. O’Connell; and to fail

to provide exculpatory evidence to Mrs. O’Connell during criminal proceedings against her, all in

violation of Mrs. O’Connell’s rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to

the United States Constitution.

187. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Mrs. O’Connell suffered


COUNT V

Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, M.G.L. c. 12, § 11I(All Defendants and Does ## 1 through 4)


189. At all relevant times, the Defendants, acting closely together and under color of

state law, deprived Mrs. O’Connell of her rights guaranteed by the Massachusetts Constitution and




31

Declaration of Rights and rights secured by state law, including but not limited to (a) Mrs.

O’Connell’s clearly established constitutional right to engage in protected speech without being

subjected to retaliation under Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, (b) Mrs.

O’Connell’s clearly established right not to be compelled to accuse or furnish evidence against

herself under Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, and (c) Mrs. O’Connell’s

clearly established constitutional right to be free from unlawful and false arrest and malicious

prosecution under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

190. Mrs. O’Connell engaged in protected speech when she verbally objected to the Sgt.

Jop’s wrongful conduct and when she told him and other police officers during her booking at the

Tewksbury police station that she was going to sue the police officer who unlawfully arrested her.

191. Defendants violated Mrs. O’Connell’s constitutional rights, including without

limitation those rights set forth in Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, to engage

in protected speech without being subjected to retaliation, when they unlawfully arrested and

imprisoned her without probable case and initiated a criminal complaint against her in retaliation

for her engaging in protected speech.


limitation those rights set forth in Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, to be free

from unlawful searches and seizures when they, without a warrant or probable cause, arrested and

imprisoned Mrs. O’Connell and initiated baseless charges against Mrs. O’Connell, which

constituted legal process.


limitation those rights set forth in Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, not to be

compelled to accuse or furnish evidence against herself when they unlawfully coerced from Mrs.




32

O’Connell the alleged statements she made while in the custody of the police, without the

advisement of Miranda rights and without the benefit of her statutory right to use the telephone,

which statements were included in the Police R eport and in Lt. Steven’s Supplemental Narrative,

and which statements were used against her in court in the prosecution of the criminal charges

against her.

194. There was no probable cause for the arrest, imprisonment or criminal charges

brought against Mrs. O’Connell.

195. The unlawful criminal charges brought against Mrs. O’Connell were terminated in

her favor.

196. The violations of Mrs. O’Connell’s constitutional rights were accomplished through

threats, intimidation, or coercion.

197. All of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct occurred under color of state law and

while they were acting in their capacities as Tewksbury police officers.

198. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Mrs. O’Connell

suffered damages described herein.

COUNT VI

False Arrest and False Imprisonment




200.

Defendants Chief Sheehan, Deputy Chief Voto, Lt. Stephens, Lt. Columbus, Sgt.

Jop, Sgt. Warren, Ofc. McMahon, Ofc. Hanley, and Does ## 1 through 4 unlawfully arrested and

falsely imprisoned Mrs. O’Connell without a warrant or probable cause.




33

201. As a result of Mrs. O’Connell’s false arrest, she was falsely imprisoned for

approximately nine (9) hours, forced to endure an unwarranted psychiatric evaluation while

handcuffed to a stretcher at Lowell General Hospital in public view, and was forced to prepare for

and attend many court hearings to defend herself against the baseless charges against her.

202. On or about August 23, 2013, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts agreed to

dismiss the Assault and Battery charge because there was no evidence to substantiate the charge,

and the Court dismissed the Threat to Commit a Crime charge because there was no probable

cause to believe that a crime had occurred.

203. On or about October 7, 2013, the Lowell District Court reaffirmed its dismissal of

the Threat to Commit a Crime charge because there was no probable cause to believe that a crime

had occurred.



COUNT VIIMalicious Prosecution




206.

Defendants Chief Sheehan, Deputy Chief Voto, Lt. Stephens, Lt. Columbus, Sgt.

Jop, Sgt. Warren, Ofc. McMahon, Ofc. Hanley, and Does ## 1 through 4 took part in instituting

criminal process against Mrs. O’Connell.

207. This criminal process was instituted with malice, in retaliation for Mrs. O’Connell

verbally objecting to Sgt. Jop’s wr ongful conduct at the scene of the incident when he was




34

interrogating her and her subsequent statements to Sgt. Jop and other officers that she was going to

sue Sgt. Jop for wrongfully arresting her.

208. Defendants lacked probable cause for the arrest and the criminal complaint which

was issued against Mrs. O’Connell.

209. The criminal charges were disposed of favorably to Mrs. O’Connell when all

charges were dismissed.



COUNT VIII

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress




212. By their course of conduct described herein, Defendants Chief Sheehan, Deputy

Chief Voto, Lt. Stephens, Lt. Columbus, Sgt. Jop, Sgt. Warren, Ofc. McMahon, Ofc. Hanley, and

Does ## 1 through 4 inflicted severe emotional distress on Mrs. O’Connell.

213. The Defendants’ course of conduct described herein and their intentional violation

of Mrs. O’Connell’s statutory and Constitutional rights was extreme and outrageous.

214.

The Defendants’ course of conduct described herein and their intentional violation

of Mrs. O’Connell’s statutory and Constitutional rights resulted in, without limitation, pain and

suffering, severe mental anguish, emotional distress, shock, fright, infliction of physical trauma

and illness, anxiety, sleeplessness, gastrointestinal problems, humiliation, indignities and

embarrassment, degradation, injury to reputation and loss of enjoyment of activities with family

and others.




35



WHEREFORE, Mr s. O’Connell requests that this Honorable Court:

1. Enter judgment in Mrs. O’Connell’s favor on all counts and award damages in an

amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest;

2. Award Mrs. O’Connell all compensatory damages, consequential damages, actual

damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, special damages, unspecified

damages, emotional distress damages, and any such other damages as the court may

deem just and proper;

3. Award Mrs. O’Connell the costs of this action, including reasonable attorney's fees;

and

4. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem necessary and

appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

A jury trial is hereby demanded.

Respectfully submitted,

ALICE E. O’CONNELL

By her attorney,

/s/ Dianne M. O’Brien

Dianne M. O’Brien, Esq.

BBO No. 559658800 Turnpike Street, Suite 300

North Andover, MA 01845(978) 794-5515

Email: [email protected]

Dated: December 6, 2015




Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1-1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 1



Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1-2 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 1

85-year-old Tewksbury woman accuses town, police of civil rights violations

Documents

Transcript of 85-year-old Tewksbury woman accuses town, police of civil rights violations