Massachusetts Cop Forum banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
MassCops Angel
Joined
·
121,497 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Helder T. Assumpcao says he was driving his van with three friends on a summer afternoon in 2005 when a state trooper pulled over the Brazilian-born carpenter and unleashed a torrent of profanity-laced, anti-immigrant abuse.

Assumpcao, a legal permanent resident of the United States, says in a federal lawsuit that State Police Trooper Gerard T. McGreal gave him a $100 ticket in Medford that stated he had failed to register his 2000 Ford van, which had two ladders and wooden boards strapped to the roof, as a commercial vehicle.
Assumpcao explained that it was his personal vehicle and that his friends were helping him paint his house, he said. Spewing expletives, McGreal called them liars and illegal aliens and had the van towed, forcing Assumpcao's friends to walk home, Assumpcao said.
The trooper denied mistreating the group in a memorandum to his commanding officer, Major Kevin J. Kelly. But after an internal investigation of the July 28, 2005, incident, Kelly sustained the complaint although he rejected Assumpcao's claim that his civil rights were violated.
On July 23, Assumpcao filed a civil rights suit in US District Court in Boston, saying that McGreal harassed him because he is an immigrant and that the trooper's actions caused him anguish and sleepless nights. He is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination previously found probable cause that McGreal violated Assumpcao's rights, the suit said.
"Trooper McGreal's behavior was extreme and outrageous, exceeding all norms of decency and civility," said the 17-page complaint against McGreal and Colonel Mark F. Delaney, superintendent of the State Police.
The suit said a Somerville District Court assistant clerk magistrate agreed that Assumpcao's van was not a commercial vehicle and dismissed the ticket.
State Police spokesman David Procopio said last week the department does not comment on pending litigation. He declined to discuss whether McGreal was disciplined, citing department policy.
Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, a pro-immigrant advocacy group, said his organization is hearing allegations like Assumpcao's against police departments elsewhere in the United States.
"We're seeing this across the country, where officers are taking immigration law - which they don't know anything about - into their own hands," said Noorani, the former head of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, who is not involved in the lawsuit.
Massachusetts has considered giving state troopers a role in enforcing immigration law.
In December 2007, more than two years after the incident, then-Governor Mitt Romney signed a controversial agreement with federal authorities to allow specially trained Massachusetts state troopers to arrest suspected illegal immigrants and charge them with violating US immigration laws.
Romney's successor, Deval Patrick, rescinded the agreement the following month, saying it would have taken troopers from their core duties. Patrick announced a plan to train a dozen correction officers in two state prisons to enforce immigration laws.
Assumpcao, who lives in Everett, said he was driving his van on Route 16 in Medford around 3 p.m. when McGreal began following him in a cruiser. After pulling the van over, the trooper said Assumpcao should have commercial plates, Assumpcao said.
Assumpcao said he did not own a business or need commercial plates. Incredulous, the trooper pointed to the ladders on the roof and said, "With all of these and all of you?" according to Assumpcao.
The trooper then asked the passengers for identification. One of them gave McGreal a nongovernmental identification card he had purchased legally to carry instead of a passport, the suit said. The trooper then angrily yelled, "This is fake," and tossed it into a wooded area by the road.
The suit did not specify whether the three passengers were in the country legally. A spokeswoman for Ropes & Gray, the law firm that helped bring the suit, declined to comment. Assumpcao could not be reached.
The trooper then called a tow truck that took away the van and brought Assumpcao home. But his three friends had to walk home, said the suit.
In a Sept. 26, 2005, memorandum to his commanding officer, McGreal acknowledged inquiring about the immigration status of the people in the van but said he treated everyone politely and did nothing wrong. He said it was Assumpcao who became agitated.
A State Police sergeant who initially investigated the matter concluded that McGreal did nothing wrong, but Major Kelly rejected the finding. He wrote Assumpcao on Dec. 12, 2005, that McGreal's remarks were "inappropriate" and added he hoped Assumpcao's future encounters with the State Police were "more positive."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ar...ds_to_immigrants_rights_suit_against_trooper/
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
Assumpcao said he did not own a business or need commercial plates.
He had a van full of guys "helping him" with a favor? Right. Weird how there are tons of guys running around "painting their house" every day. Textbook response.

The trooper then asked the passengers for identification. One of them gave McGreal a nongovernmental identification card he had purchased legally to carry instead of a passport, the suit said. The trooper then angrily yelled, "This is fake," and tossed it into a wooded area by the road.
Well, was it? What is a "nongovernmental ID"?

The suit did not specify whether the three passengers were in the country legally. A spokeswoman for Ropes & Gray, the law firm that helped bring the suit, declined to comment.
Of course they did.

A State Police sergeant who initially investigated the matter concluded that McGreal did nothing wrong, but Major Kelly rejected the finding. He wrote Assumpcao on Dec. 12, 2005, that McGreal's remarks were "inappropriate" and added he hoped Assumpcao's future encounters with the State Police were "more positive."
It's always great when a manager that wasn't there or even involved in an investigation makes a unilateral decision on an investigation. These types of things remind of the famous "Hillman Rule", in which a guy can go through a week long court martial where multiple witnesses are called and hours of testimony is given. Then, the Board that hears the evidence gives a finding and a sanction...which Colonel Hillman, without hearing a minute of testimony promptly overrides and orders the guy terminated.

It seems like in this instance the job agreed that the trooper should not have talked about the immigration, but did not comment on the towing of the vehicle. As far as a Clerk Mag's rulings...well, we all know how valid those usually are.
 
G

·
I know Gerard and he is very laid back. Yelling, at anybody, is not his style. He does his job and does not personally attack people. I want to know why the Boston GlobeCrat is not concerned about the unlicensed driver on our raodways or the crimaliens taking painting jobs from tax paying citizens.
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
2,134 Posts
"We're seeing this across the country, where officers are taking immigration law - which they don't know anything about - into their own hands," said Noorani, the former head of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, who is not involved in the lawsuit.
Any officer knows the most fundamental part of immigration law -- if you weren't born here (or abroad to a U.S. citizen) and/or you don't have legal government-issued documents to prove you have a right to be/live here, then you are...

wait for it............

ILLEGAL!!!

I've never had any problems phoning ICE and confirming someone's residency status. Why should it be so "offensive" for an officer to ask a person their country of birth?? Just another liberal example of putting the blame everywhere except where it belongs... :DP:
 
G

·
Deval Patrick does NOT want MSP or any law enforcement for that matter, contacting ICE regarding guest status.

He wants as many as possible here.

For what, who knows.
Votes, because the agenda of "immigrants rights" groups includes voting rights for illegal aliens.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top