There is an interesting case evolving in the Boston Police Department. A female officer recently made an allegation that a male officer repeatedly raped her, and that she recently found out she was pregnant as a result of a recent rape event. The facts of the case are that both were traveling to CT to participate in a shooting competition - for those who don't know, this is not uncommon. Many large departments have competitive teams that travel around the country participating in events of this sort. After a night of drinking, so the allegation goes, the male officer raped her. He allegedly repeatedly raped her after they returned with threats that he will tell her husband and/or shoot them both (he happens to be a sharp shooter).
The woman recently came forward with the allegations after telling her husband she was pregnant with the other officer’s child. The accused officer claims the sexual contact was consensual and she only made the allegation after she found out she was pregnant and told her husband. It is shaping up to be quite a "he said/she said."
She requested that a restraining order be granted. The judge recently vacated the restraining order on a technicality.
Among other things, I am wondering the implications of a restraining order for a police officer. I would assume such an allegation would also result in a temporary prohibition from using a firearm. The implications are such that the officer would not be able to do their job. While such restraining orders and firearm prohibitions are not uncommon, this is really damaging to an officer trying to do their job. Absent some absolutely compelling reason (very high burden in this case), should judges be reluctant to make such restrictions on police as it could result in them not being able to work?
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I don't have any data on this, but I think that many departments place their officers on "desk duty" or paid administrative leave when there are allegations of illegal activity (wrongful -- or rightful -- shootings, police harassment, etc.). As long as the matter was sent to the internal review board immediately and charges were brought quickly, then it would not cause undue harm to the accused officer, who would either be allowed to return to work if no charges were brought or be on trial if he were indicted (and, at that point, should definitely not be allowed to have a firearm and badge).
In many states (including MI), petitioners can check a box on their protection order application form requesting that the judge prohibit the respondent from purchasing or possessing a firearm. This, of course, is problematic for police officers, conservation officers, military personnel, and others who carry a firearm in the course of their employment.
I think it is largely up to the judge whether that particular restriction is granted. In my experience at the PPO Office, when the victim's statement indicated that the respondent had threatened gun violence or had actually brandished a gun during an assault, judges typically granted the firearm restriction regardless of who the respondent was (i.e., police officer or not). However, in other less serious cases a judge might issue the protection order but NOT restrict the respondent from carrying a gun.
Obviously protection order firearm restrictions can pose a problem for people whose jobs require them to carry a gun. Unless other arrangements (like desk duty, as Mike3550 suggested) can be made, the respondent potentially is out of employment until the firearm restriction is lifted, or until the protection order itself is terminated or expires.
Interestingly, I think a lot of victims are well aware of those potential problems. I worked with women who would refuse to check the firearm restriction box on their applications because their partners were cops and they didn't want them to not be able to work. However, in other situations that restriction is totally appropriate, in my view.
I once worked with a client who was married to a law enforcement officer. One day she came running into our office, breathless and panicked, saying that her husband -- who was armed -- was following her. We grabbed her, locked the doors, closed the blinds, called the police, and hid under our desks until the police arrived. Thankfully nobody was hurt, as the guy took off once he "lost" his wife after she ducked into our office. Still, situations like that remind me why those firearm restrictions exist.
On the other hand, we all know that if an abuser is REALLY intent on shooting his partner, the protection order firearm restriction won't do a darn thing to stop him.
P.S. I am more interested in the "technicality" upon which the order was vacated. Just like in MI, the restraining order laws in MA pertain to situations of domestic violence -- that is, abuse by a current or former spouse, current or former dating partner, current or former cohabitant, blood relative, or someone with whom you have a child in common. I was actually wondering about this when I wrote my previous comment, as the petitioner in this case is the alleged victim of a sexual assault by a man with whom she did NOT have any of those relationships. The judge stated that being in the early stages of pregnancy does not quality as "having a child in common," therefore the female officer was not an eligible petitioner for the order in the first place.
My take on this is that the judge probably made the right call. I can tell you that in Michigan (or, at least, in the counties I am familiar with), a judge with these same facts would probably not issue a PPO, because MI law is very clear that they are designed for either a domestic violence situation or a stalking situation. Unfortunately, they are not designed for situations involving stranger or acquaintance rape, as is alleged in this case.
Interesting information here. I didn't realize a restraining order was only for "consensual" relationships. Similarly, I wonder if that was the nature of the legal technicality. Thanks also to Mike3550, really good points. This is a pretty crazy case and will be worth following. I will post information as it becomes available.
It's not so much whether the relationship between the parties is consensual as whether it is "domestic". There has to be some intimate, familial, and/or cohabitating relationship between the parties in order to qualify for a domestic PPO. So, having been sexually assaulted by a friend or co-worker doesn't meet the domestic relationship criteria. This happened several times during the time I worked for the county -- women who had been raped by a friend or neighbor would come to us requesting a domestic PPO. Having never "dated" or lived with this person, they were not eligible for a domestic PPO. For lack of more sophisticated phrasing, it just sucked having to tell those women that they couldn't file for a PPO. Here they've been violated in the most serious way imaginable, they're trying to take some measure of control and seek legal help by filing a PPO, and they aren't eligible. Like I said, sucky. However, there are alternatives. For example, a rape victim could request that the judge issue a No-Contact Order as a condition of the alleged perpetrator's bond, and this is what we most often counseled women in that situation to do. Of course, this assumes that the assailant had been arrested...
Post a Comment