Closed-door hearing for officer involved in Sandra Birchmore case begins Thursday
The state's police oversight agency will make its case at a closed-door hearing beginning Thursday for why one of the former Stoughton Police officers involved in the Sandra Birchmore case should never again work in law enforcement in Massachusetts.
Robert Devine, the former Stoughton deputy police chief, is among a trio of former Stoughton officers, along with brothers Matthew and William Farwell, accused of having inappropriate sexual relationships with Birchmore after she joined their police youth program as a teenager.
Devine is fighting efforts from the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission, or POST, to revoke his certification for police work, a requirement for all officers employed in the commonwealth.
Beginning Thursday, his case will play out in secret at the commission office in Boston after a retired judge presiding over the hearing ruled last week that protective orders covering sensitive evidence necessitated closing proceedings to the public and press.
Some open government advocates criticized the decision for restricting access to a hearing of significant public interest.
The commission was created in 2020, after the killing of George Floyd by a Minnesota police officer, 'to increase transparency and accountability' in law enforcement, said Justin Silverman, executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition.'You've got this horrible case that's going to be heard behind closed doors,' he said. 'That strikes me as out of step with why the commission was created.'
The Birchmore case took a sharp turn last year when federal authorities charged Mathew Farwell with killing Birchmore in February 2021 and staging her death as a suicide. He had hoped to prevent her from revealing their relationship, which authorities said began when she was underage.
A state medical examiner had previously ruled that Birchmore killed herself, a determination federal officials said missed key signs of a cover-up.
According to prosecutors, Birchmore had told Farwell she was pregnant with his child before her death at age 23. Farwell denied to investigators that he was the father.
Neither his brother William nor Devine faces criminal charges connected to the case, though all three are named in a wrongful death lawsuit brought by Birchmore's aunt.
Read more: Sandra Birchmore timeline: from Stoughton Explorer to arrest of Matthew Farwell
Devine's hearing centers on claims that he abused his position of authority, lied to internal investigators and behaved in a manner unbecoming of a police officer.
Birchmore met the Farwell brothers and Devine, who supervised them, after joining the Stoughton Police Explorers Program as a 12-year-old in 2010. She remained in the program until graduating high school.
According to federal prosecutors, Matthew Farwell began sexually exploiting Birchmore in 2013, when he was 27 and she was 15, under the age of consent in Massachusetts.
Their sexual encounters continued regularly as she grew older and sometimes occurred while he was on duty, investigators said.
According to charging documents, as Farwell began to lose control of Birchmore in late 2020, he agreed to help her get pregnant in return for keeping their relationship while she was underage a secret.
On Feb. 1, 2021, prosecutors say, Farwell strangled Birchmore at her apartment in Canton and staged her death as a suicide.
The Stoughton Police Department launched an internal investigation after Birchmore's death into her interactions with the Farwell brothers and Devine.
When interviewed by investigators, Devine claimed that he had never communicated online with Birchmore and that the pair had only limited interactions, according to a notice from the POST Commission initiating the decertification proceedings.
But records from Facebook Messenger showed Devine and Birchmore exchanged messages 'on multiple occasions,' he using the alias 'Marty Riggs,' from November 2020 until her death in February 2021, the commission said.
Their messages also indicated that Devine 'arranged to have a sexual encounter' with Birchmore during one shift he was working in December 2021, according to the commission.
The internal investigation by the Stoughton Police found Devine had been untruthful, incompetent and 'failed to demonstrate attention and devotion to his duty.'
In a ruling Friday, Judge Kenneth J. Fishman, who is presiding over the hearing, said protective orders covering evidence related to the case meant the proceedings must be kept confidential.
There are four protective orders dealing with the Birchmore case: one approved by a federal judge dealing with Matthew Farwell's criminal case, one from Attorney General Andrea Campbell's office related to the lawsuit brought by Birchmore's family, and two from Fishman regarding Devine's case with the POST Commission.
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts requested the protective order in the Farwell case to prevent the release of information it believed could expose Birchmore or witnesses 'to significant safety and/or privacy risks.'
Among the information covered under the protective order, the government said in a September court filing, were crime scene and autopsy photographs of Birchmore's body, data from her phone and laptop 'from which it would be impractical or impossible to redact all identifying information,' Birchmore's medical records and police reports identifying witnesses by name.
Fishman's order closing Devine's hearing to the public said protective orders were in place to protect confidential evidence and 'the identity of an individual.'
Many of the materials and information would be discussed throughout the hearing, Fishman wrote. Understanding that at least some portion of the hearing must be closed, the judge said he considered 'the feasibility of structuring the presentation of evidence to enable an efficient proceeding between the closed and, if any, open portions of the hearing.'
Attorneys for the commission and Devine advised Fishman that the entire session would be interspersed with discussions of confidential information.
'It's unlikely that any testimony regarding the substance of the allegations would cover topics outside of the protected evidence,' commission lawyers said.
Fishman concluded that there was 'no reasonable method for opening any portions of this hearing to the public without a substantial risk of disclosing confidential evidence,' he wrote.
Commission hearings are 'presumptively public,' but can be closed 'if the presiding officer determines that full or limited closure is necessary to protect privacy interests and will not be contrary to the public interest,' a commission spokesperson said in a statement to MassLive.
The commission pointed to five other cases where hearings had been closed, including cases when it was needed to protect the identity of a victim of sexual or violent crimes, the spokesperson said.
Both Farwell brothers and Devine left the department in 2022. The brothers each reached agreements with the commission last year to be stripped of their certifications, a move that carries a lifetime ban from police work in Massachusetts.
Like other officers whose certifications have been revoked, they were added to a national registry of decertified police officers designed to prevent them from finding police work in other states.
Mass. police watchdog decertifies officers from Boston, Springfield and 3 other towns
Mass. police watchdog revokes 5 officers' certifications: 'Not fit for duty'
Former Boston Police officer who secretly filmed nude child banned from police work
Read the original article on MassLive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
20 hours ago
- New York Post
400-pound monster alligator named Pepe ‘detained' for ‘being a dinosaur without proper papers' in NC
The scales of justice came for Pepe. Cops detained – and rescued – a monster 10-foot alligator they nicknamed Pepe the Gator sunbathing on a busy road in North Carolina and 'charged' him on suspicion of being a 'dinosaur.' 'Witnesses say he was just chilling and snapping, clearly ignoring the 'no loitering or lounging on roadways' sign,' the Onslow County Sheriff's Office wrote in a playful press release last week. 'Pepe has been cited for Suspicion of Being a Dinosaur Without Proper Papers, Public Loitering with Intent to Sunbathe, and Obstructing Traffic.' Advertisement 3 Deputies and a wildlife officer straddle Pepe the Gator, who was playfully charged with being a dinosaur without proper papers as he sunbathed on a North Carolina highway last month. Onslow County Sheriff's Office The responding deputies and officers from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission who got the call on May 25 managed to safely remove Pepe, but not before posing for pictures where they straddle him like rodeo riders. 'He was 10 feet long, 400 pounds. He was an absolute monster,' Trevor Dunnell, spokesman for the Onslow County Sheriff's Office told the Post Thursday. Advertisement 'They did a fantastic job of wrangling him.' To indicate the scale of the gator, Dunnell pointed out how, in the picture, even with three grown men on top of him, Pepe's still not covered. 'The picture really doesn't do it justice, I mean 10 feet … 10 feet is a basketball goal, that is a massive creature,' he said. Although 10 feet seems big, it's nothing compared to the largest gator on record – 14 feet and 3 and a half inches. Advertisement Deputies and wildlife officials used a towel to cover Pepe's eyes — eye contact is what triggers the animal's notorious death roll, Dunnell explained — and electrical tape to seal his mouth shut. 'It was definitely some MacGyver stuff they had to use,' he said. 'He may not have a good time during the removal, but he was playfully enough about it later to understand that, 'Hey, man, you gotta do what you gotta do.'' 3 Deputies and a wildlife officer in North Carolina successfully relocated Pepe the Gator. Onslow County Sheriff's Office Dunnell said the office received blowback from people online wishing the cops had just left Pepe alone. but Dunnell was quick to point out that leaving the reptile on the side of the road could have posed a hazard not only to residents but also to the gator. Advertisement 'You never know what can happen when kids are running around,' he said. 'And the gator could wind up in the middle of the road. It could hurt drivers but it could hurt him, too.' Dunnell said he hopes to see body camera footage of Pepe's apprehension. The two deputies and the wildlife official in the picture are happy to be riding him, Dunnell said, adding that if authorities encounter another Pepe, they'll know who to call. 3 The sheriff's office dropped all charges against Pepe the Gator, who was playfully suspected of being a dinosaur without his proper papers, after he was returned to his natural habitat. Onslow County Sheriff's Office 'But some deputies were absolutely not fine,' he said. 'When they got back, they were saying, 'You're not going to catch me on that thing. I'm not going to go anywhere near it!'' Pepe was far from home, and Dunnell suspects that it was a hot day and he was looking for a good spot to bask. 'How far he wandered is anybody's guess,' he said. 'It must've been several miles at least.' After further investigation, Dunnell said, they declined to charge Pepe. Instead, they drove him to a boat ramp at nearby Camp Geiger, a satellite facility of Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune. Advertisement 'I think we've touched base with the gator and let him know we dropped the charges,' he joked. 'Pepe's back to his normal routine, he's hanging out near the beach and lounging in his natural habitat, hunting for his food and looking for a girlfriend.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Missouri's Historic Abortion Victory Is Crumbling Before Our Eyes
Just a few months ago, Missouri voters approved a ballot measure to protect abortion rights. That measure, known as Amendment 3, added a 'reproductive freedom' amendment to the state constitution. It was crafted to offer stronger legal protections for abortion than existed under Roe v. Wade, according to campaigners, and to end the state's near-total abortion ban, which had been triggered by the Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe. Those who voted for it believed that the amendment would allow them to override such past anti-abortion court rulings and to block anti-abortion lawmakers' future efforts—in essence, to reclaim their own rights and political voice. But as of May 27, by way of a two-page order from the state's Supreme Court, the abortion ban voters had been told they defeated was back. The ruling came as a 'surprise' to pro-choice and anti-abortion groups alike, the Missouri Independent reported this week. With it, the Supreme Court of Missouri has effectively allowed the state to enforce a raft of anti-abortion laws that had been challenged by two Planned Parenthood affiliates, which argued that such laws now violated the state constitution, thanks to Amendment 3. After last week's ruling, Planned Parenthood health centers in the state—Missouri's only abortion clinics—canceled upcoming appointments and advised patients that they could instead go to neighboring Kansas or Illinois, where abortion is legal. For now, those patients, and any Missourian who needs an abortion, have found themselves right back where they would have been had Amendment 3 never been on the ballot. The sudden loss of abortion access is an inarguable blow for Missouri's reproductive rights movement. But it's also something more troubling: a sign of flaws in the post-Roe strategy chosen by large national reproductive rights groups like Planned Parenthood and state chapters and affiliates of such groups, including the ACLU and Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL). For these groups, abortion rights ballot measures have been seen as a path forward in a hostile legal environment, a way to restore access without relying on the courts. Campaigns would go direct to the people, giving energized supporters a tangible goal to work toward, along with some optimism, amid an otherwise crushing assault on reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy. The speed with which Missouri's ballot measure has gone from being a historic victory to yet another legal battle reveals that such election night wins may prove to be far more qualified and complicated to hold onto than campaigners had hoped. For some advocates in Missouri who had worked on Amendment 3, however, there was nothing all that surprising in the state Supreme Court's ruling. They saw it as a reality check. 'There is no way to responsibly sugarcoat what's playing out in the state,' the What's Next for Missouri coalition told me in a statement from the group. The coalition was founded by longtime Missouri reproductive justice advocates, as well as former staff of Planned Parenthood affiliates in Missouri who quit over their concerns about the ballot measure. 'Amendment 3 was a limited and symbolic win,' the coalition said. 'In reality, it has failed to protect pregnant people's bodily autonomy. Inaccessible abortion is just the tip of the iceberg.' Voters in Missouri may have declared that abortion was their constitutional right, but abortion was not going to return overnight to Missouri. In November, state Attorney General Andrew Bailey offered his legal opinion on which anti-abortion laws might still be enforceable. After stating that Amendment 3 'just barely' won by a 'tight margin,' he opined that 'the result may be very different if a future constitutional amendment is put up for a vote,' and detailed circumstances in which he believed some of the laws could still be enforced. In other words, he was not going to accept that Amendment 3 automatically invalidated state anti-abortion laws—and to be fair, the Amendment 3 campaign seems to have anticipated just such a reaction. Not long after the election, the two Planned Parenthood affiliates that have health centers in Missouri challenged many of those laws as 'presumptively unconstitutional,' citing Amendment 3. Their petition, filed in the circuit court of Jackson County by Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers-Missouri, also requested that the court temporarily block such laws while the case played out. That included the total abortion ban triggered after Roe, as well as laws meant to restrict abortion access even if it were not technically banned, such as mandatory waiting periods and mandatory ultrasounds. In a pair of rulings in December and February, Judge Jerri Zhang granted the affiliates' request for a temporary injunction on most of those laws, after which Planned Parenthood clinics in Missouri began to offer abortion again, with significant limits: only procedural abortion up to 12 or 13 weeks, no medication abortion, in just three clinics across the entire state, operating at limited capacity. Other restrictions remained, including some that were not part of Planned Parenthood's challenge. Mandatory parental involvement laws were later challenged by the practical abortion support organization Right By You, in April. There were also restrictions that Amendment 3 did not touch: The ballot measure allows for abortion to be banned past fetal viability, the legal line after which a fetus is thought to be able to survive independently. This means that people having later abortions were left out of the promises of Amendment 3 from the start. Missouri Attorney General Bailey appealed Judge Zhang's decision, seeking to block abortion in the state during the court challenge—an appeal enabled by a new law giving the state attorney such power to sue to halt injunctions, signed just days before. Meanwhile, the Missouri General Assembly voted to put a new abortion ban on the ballot, an effort to overturn Amendment 3. The constitutional right protecting abortion that voters believed they had succeeded in installing was being rapidly undermined across multiple fronts—by the state attorney general, in the courts, and in the legislature. This legal undermining depends in part on voters not knowing that it's even happening. The proposed anti-abortion ballot measure language did not refer to Amendment 3, nor to banning abortion, hiding its ban behind claims of ensuring women's 'safety during abortions.' For good measure, it added a ban on gender-affirming care for minors—care that is currently banned in the state. Democrats in the state legislature had tried to block the anti-abortion ballot measure proposal from advancing, but Republicans broke their filibuster with 'a rare procedural maneuver to shut down debate and force a vote on a measure that would repeal Amendment 3,' as St. Louis Public Radio reported. Amendment 3 campaign leaders forcefully denounced both the new ballot measure and the legislature's underhanded attempt to reverse the will of Missouri voters. 'This deceptive amendment is a trojan horse to reinstate Missouri's total abortion ban,' Tori Schafer, director of policy and campaigns at the ACLU of Missouri, said in a statement. At protests on the steps of the state Capitol in Jefferson City, Amendment 3 supporters were now fighting to hang onto their victory, as they have had to many times this session. 'This past November, more than 1.5 million Missourians made their voices heard at the ballot box,' Mallory Schwarz, executive director of Abortion Action Missouri, said. 'Missourians are used to fighting back and are prepared to keep showing up.' Two weeks later, abortion access in the state would be all but nonexistent again, after Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Mary Russell ordered Judge Zhang to vacate her temporary injunction and to reevaluate the Planned Parenthood affiliates' request, this time using a stricter standard. The ACLU of Missouri, which is co-counsel in the legal challenge, told The New Republic that it had 'immediately' responded to the order by sending correspondence to the court, 'highlighting that our arguments met this standard.' Tom Bastian, ACLU of Missouri director of communications, added that while the group 'can't predict when the court will act, we anticipate new orders … granting the preliminary injunctions blocking the ban and restrictions, once again allowing Missourians access to abortion care.' For now, then, those Missourians will be doing what they did before election night, before Dobbs: going out of state or self-managing their abortion with pills. In this, the reality for abortion in Missouri looks a lot like it did back when the near-total ban passed. The difference is that now more than $30 million has been spent on a ballot measure meant to reverse that ban. As the legal scholar Mary Ziegler pointed out this week, it is possible that Missourians' abortion rights will prevail, that Planned Parenthood will get its injunction, or even that the new anti-abortion ballot measure may fail. However, as she wrote, 'what is happening in Missouri is still a sign about the limits of ballot measures.' Advocates in other states should be asking: What is such a 'win' worth? The legal battle over Amendment 3 is nothing new, as Planned Parenthood's initial filing in this legal challenge acknowledged. 'The State of Missouri has spent decades attempting to eliminate or severely reduce abortion access,' its petition stated. 'This means that Plaintiffs have spent decades challenging these laws.' The lengths that Missouri lawmakers have been willing to go since the election, unfortunately, indicate that this is not a fair fight in fair courts. 'It's time for simple honesty,' What's Next said to me this week. People will have unreliable and irregular access to abortion 'until we shift power away from fascist politicians.' The reality is that this fight for the constitutional right to abortion was playing out at the same time that our constitutional rights were being ignored and undermined on a regular basis. Before we fundraise millions more dollars to replicate the fight in other states—fundraising that will be justified as 'restoring' access to abortion by making it a right—we might consider other, more immediate ways to give people what they need. That money might be better spent on paying for actual abortions, as abortion funds across the country do, helping people in the many states with abortion bans to access care. In a legal system that cannot be counted upon, there may be no more direct way of supporting a fundamental right.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Cuomo flip-flops on flip-flop, supports NYC congestion pricing — after telling The Post he wanted it paused
Mayoral hopeful Andrew Cuomo brazenly flipped his flip-flop on congestion pricing – after last year penning a Post op-ed walking back his past support for the scheme. When Cuomo was asked by The New York Times in an interview Tuesday whether he supports congestion pricing now that it shows signs of success, the former governor gave a blunt response: 'Yes.' The supportive stance contrasted with Cuomo's op-ed urging leaders pump the brakes on the controversial plan – which he championed and approved as governor. He had said at the time that imposing the toll on vehicles entering Manhattan south of 60th Street would drive people into an increasingly violent subway system. The op-ed suggested an analysis on the effect of a $15 toll on the city's post-pandemic recovery. 'The people of New York know this is not the time to implement congestion pricing, but where are their local leaders passing resolutions condemning the policy?' he said then. But felony assaults in the subways are 19% percent higher so far this year compared to the same point in 2024, months after Cuomo penned his opinion piece, NYPD data shows. Overall crime in the transit system is down 4.5% over the same span, according to the data. Cuomo insisted during the Times interview that his opinion on congestion pricing has never wavered. 'All I said was, let's study this before we do it in this moment, to make sure people aren't going to say, 'you know what, another reason for me to stay home,'' he said. But Cuomo's apparent flip-flop-flip quickly drew outrage from Cuomo's opponents, political insiders and even supporters of congestion pricing. 'He'll say anything and everything to get elected,' Mayor Eric Adams said of Cuomo's congestion pricing about-face. 'He really believes that people don't know his history.' Cuomo had muscled congestion pricing through the state Legislature in 2019, arguing at the time that only 'very rich people' can afford the 'luxury' to drive into Manhattan. After Cuomo resigned as governor in 2021 amid a sexual harassment scandal, he returned from the political wilderness in part by calling to pause congestion pricing. He argued that New Yorkers financially hit by the COVID-19 pandemic couldn't be expected to pay another charge, as well as be shunted into dangerous subways. Curtis Sliwa, the presumptive Republican nominee for mayor, however, saw Cuomo's latest about-face on congestion pricing as yet another craven political calculation. 'Andrew Cuomo isn't interested in governing, he's already scheming for the national stage,' he said. 'He's the king of flip flops, who stands for nothing, puts himself above everyone, and says whatever he thinks will help him get ahead.' Democratic operative Ken Frydman said Cuomo won't be the last politician to change his tune on congestion pricing. 'But now that he's running for mayor of New York City instead of governor of New York State, he's clearly appealing for votes from motorists in the five boroughs,' he said. Another Democratic operative was less charitable. 'Andrew Cuomo has no core principles, he'll say whatever it takes to claw his way back into power,' the operative said. 'He's exactly why so many people have lost faith in politics: a flip-flopping wannabe king who ran to the Hamptons when things got tough.' Danny Pearlstein, a spokesman for the pro-congestion pricing NYC Riders Alliance, argued Cuomo has a poor record as governor for mass transit. 'We need a mayor we can trust, not one who lies and falsifies history when it's convenient for him,' Pearlstein said. Cuomo told reporters just after he kicked off his campaign in March that 'preliminary data' pointed to the early success of congestion pricing goals, but added he didn't believe 'all data was in yet.' His campaign officials maintained the ex-gov's stance hasn't changed. 'Governor Cuomo passed congestion pricing in 2019 and nearly two years ago – after being held up for years in Washington – asked the reasonable question about whether we were in the right place economically in our post-pandemic recovery and whether or not drivers had enough confidence in the subways to ditch their cars, or were they just going to work remotely,' his spokeswoman Esther Jensen said. 'These were logical questions that many people were asking. As the governor said yesterday – the indicators are that the program is working.' – Additional reporting by Haley Brown
