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.
Ad:
Comments
$2,500? Are you missing two
$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?
Actually more like $6,300 now
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.
$6, 300.00??
That's not nearly enough! Aren't there still 2 or three zeroes missing in there??
More like $4,900
$6,300 would actually buy me a similar motorcycle... in 2004!
$6,300 out of Pietroski's pocket
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.
A day late and a dollar short!
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.
That's all?
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'.
of course he does
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...
Falsifying reports is haaaahd
Falsifying reports is haaaahd work.
They didn't recognize the Red Sox pitching failures this year
either. Or a lot of other things.
I don't think he was hurt that bad.
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.
I was hurt "that bad"
With all this info out there, I'm surprised the pictures aren't available too... the curb "leaves a mark"
No guidelines
It was exactly that, the jury decided the monetary reward, no guidelines.
2002?
Only took 8 years to get this resolved? Good Lord, what a terrible country we have sometimes.
My g*d!
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:
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!
Agreed. Best line: Pietroski
Agreed. Best line:
Way to Protect & Serve!
A night I'll remember
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.