Hey, there! Log in / Register

Appeals court upholds verdict against Boston cop for slamming guy's head to the pavement during traffic stop

A federal appeals court today agreed with a jury that Boston Officer Jamie Pietroski used excessive force in 2002 during an arrest of a motorcyclist who didn't stop when Pietroski turned on his blue lights to make him pull over for failing to wear a helmet.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston said that while Pietroski had probable cause to pull Matthew Raiche over after spotting him in Brigham Circle, he had absolutely no justification for pulling him off his motorcycle and twice slamming his head into the sidewalk, let alone for destroying Raiche's motorcyle.

Pietroski sought to have the verdict overturned and a new trial ordered on the grounds that, as a police officer, he had immunity from the suit because he was performing his duty. But the appeals court said pulling Raiche off his bike when he was just sitting there - he said he did not realize the officers were after him and thought they just wanted him to move out of their way - and throwing him around violated not only the Constitution but Boston Police policies on dealing with arrests, especially given the relatively minor nature of the offenses:

We sympathize with the challenging work of police officers, which often forces them to make "split-second judgments – in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving – about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation." Graham, 490 U.S. at 396. However, we do not find such circumstances here. An objectively reasonable police officer would have believed that tackling Raiche from his motorcycle and slamming him into the pavement would violate his constitutional right to be free from excessive force.

Barring an appeal, the ruling means Pietroski will have to pay Raiche the $2,500 awarded by the jury.

Complete ruling.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

$2,500? Are you missing two or three zeroes?

This is Boston, not some redneck backwater or ghetto combat zone. This incident sounds like it could happen to any of us, over a misunderstanding. Do we all have to be scared that an initial cause for concern about failure to wear a helmet might turn into a tough-love education session of getting our head bashed into the pavement repeatedly?

Or is there a separate, seven-figure, suit against the city?

up
Voting closed 0

What with interest and all.

The court ruling is now linked from the post so you can read it for yourself. Sorry for not doing that initially.

up
Voting closed 0

That's not nearly enough! Aren't there still 2 or three zeroes missing in there??

up
Voting closed 0

$6,300 would actually buy me a similar motorcycle... in 2004!

up
Voting closed 0

will probably do more good encouraging BPD officers with the belief they are above the law that they are accountable to the law, than a judgment or settlement paid by the city.

Pietroski stopped the guy for not wearing a helmet, a safety violation, and threw him to the ground because he didn't dismount, a safety hazard. Pietroski is no genius.

up
Voting closed 0

I had no idea there was so much info about my case floating around on the internet. Overall the turnout was a bit un-expected after the treatment I received. Although it wasn't about the money it certainly would've been nice to actually be compensated accordingly.

up
Voting closed 0

Jake Wark or someone, is this one of those cases where the monetary amount is decided solely by the jury without any guidelines? That's like barely enough to cover the damaged motorcycle, let alone the damaged head and the pain and suffering etc.

Also, Jamie Pietroski made $97,628.35 in 2008. Just sayin'.

up
Voting closed 0

Police work is "challenging."

Funny how that translates to great pay and virtually no accountability...and that the courts "recognize the challenging nature of police work" but don't recognize the testilying and falsified police reports, murders, drug running...

up
Voting closed 0

Falsifying reports is haaaahd work.

up
Voting closed 0

either. Or a lot of other things.

up
Voting closed 0

I think the point of the case was that he could have been hurt a lot worse and the excessive force was illegal.

Plus I think the two versions of events had something to do with it. The cops said the guy was still trying to manevuer out of the situation while the guy said he pulled over, stopped and just waited there.

In either situation, throwing the man to the ground would have been excessive force, not not that unreasonable if he was really trying to still get out of the situation.

up
Voting closed 0

With all this info out there, I'm surprised the pictures aren't available too... the curb "leaves a mark"

up
Voting closed 0

It was exactly that, the jury decided the monetary reward, no guidelines.

up
Voting closed 0

Only took 8 years to get this resolved? Good Lord, what a terrible country we have sometimes.

up
Voting closed 0

Throwing a guy to the ground (although that, too, is excessive force) is one thing, maybe, but slamming the guy's head onto the pavement??!? That's totally out of control and out of bounds. To paraphrase a quote from the movie Billy Jack:

"When policemen break the law, there is no law, only a fight for survival."

I hope the cop who did that to the guy is brought to justice and made to pay, not only in terms of thousands of dollars to the guy who's head he slammed onto the pavement, but in being permanently dismissed by the BPD. Where the hell is accountability? He doesn't belong a cop!

up
Voting closed 0

Agreed. Best line:

Pietroski sought to have the verdict overturned and a new trial ordered on the grounds that, as a police officer, he had immunity from the suit because he was performing his duty

Way to Protect & Serve!

up
Voting closed 0

This was an experience nobody should ever have to go through. I didn't resist or flee AT ALL! And wow, what a eye opener hearing the cops straight up lie in court, under oath. I suppose if they had coordinated a little better and made their lies consistent with each other the jury may not have awarded me anything. Amazingly neither of the officers' stories aligned with the police report or their partner's version.

up
Voting closed 0