Tom Duggan ~ 1/23/25
An Independent Investigation by Maverick Investigative Services was conducted to determine whether or not Lawrence Police Superior Officers, the former Personnel Director Mike Owens, or the previous investigation into Acting Lawrence Police Chief William Castro was conducted legally, and in accordance with policy and procedure. The Results of that report were sent to Lawrence Mayor Brian DePena yesterday.
The original investigation stems from a police pursuit by Acting Chief Castro who was not allowed by department policy to engage in such a pursuit.
The original investigation was to determine whether Castro violated dept. policy but because other officers who did not like Castro, influenced the Bennett report and filed complaints with the state, the Bennett investigation was escalated to one of ethical violations with POST, the state civilian review board.
Maverick Investigative Services were then hired by Lawrence Mayor Brian DePena to determine if any illegalities or violations of policies and procedures were committed during the Bennett investigation.
The Maverick report found: (FULL REPORT HERE)
Backup documentation including police reports,
text messages, and emails HERE
- Previous (Bennett) Investigation Was Heavily Influenced by Lawrence Superior Officers Who Wanted A Chief Chosen From Within the Department – Acted Against Policy
- No Laws were broken by Lawrence Superior Officers
- Lt. Rossi had no Authority to report Castro to POST.
- Lt. Rossi was sloppy with confidential documents and did not follow procedures
- Acting Chief Castro violated department policy by engaging in a police pursuit
- Castro did not violate any laws by participating in the pursuit
- Sgt Simard made reasonable assumptions during pursuit that were not broadcast by dispatch during the pursuit
- Castro made reasonable assumptions that were not broadcast by dispatch during the pursuit
- Simard’s assumptions were deemed reasonable by other officers
- Castro’s assumptions were not given that same courtesy
- No evidence that Sgt. Simard unduly influenced previous investigation
- Sgt. Simard had previous conflicts with Castro
- Lawrence Police Superior Officers did not like Castro because they wanted a new chief to be chosen from within the department
- Lt. Rossi violated POST procedures
- Lt Rossi is inclined to jump to conclusions and over zealousness, which is concerning given that he oversees Internal Investigations
- Lt. Rossi accused independent investigators of conflict of interest with no evidence or merit
- Sgt. Simard and Lt. Rossi were worried about “retaliation” by Castro for reporting his policy violation
- Sgt. Simard changed his original police report
- City Atty Houten testified that the Bennet (original) investigation of Castro was for a policy violation only (the pursuit) but that investigation morphed into an ethical investigation when superior officers claimed Castro “lied” on his police report even though Simard’s original report also had information that was not corroborated by the dispatch and was changed
- Bennett investigation (original investigation) was incomplete and one sided because Castro was not interviewed or given chance to give his side of the story
- Bennett declined to accommodate a date for interview when Castro’s lawyer could attend
- Personnel Director Owens also acknowledged that he was “playing hard ball” with Castro for the compelled interview date
- Michael Owens and Daniel Bennett are both attorneys and should have known that an employee absolutely has the right to have counsel present
- Bennett asserts his investigation was complete despite never interviewing Castro.
- It appears that Bennett jumped to a conclusion the city was attempting to interfere without any corroborating evidence to support the assertion
- The Secretary of State ordered the city to release the incomplete Bennett report with redactions
- The city had not yet completed it’s redactions when Officer Paul MacMillan, who is the President of the Lawrence Police Department’s Patrolman Union, released the Bennett Investigation to the City Council and media outlets (See Exhibit 18).
- It is now known MacMillan obtained the Bennett Investigation via a FOIA request to the Essex County District Attorney’s Office.
- Maverick Investigative Services and RCB & Associates reviewed the reports submitted by Owens and Raso and concluded their responses were sufficient to alleviate valid concerns of collusion/interference that could have compromised Bennett’s Investigation.
BACKGROUND
“On February 2, 2024, William Castro, who was serving as the Lawrence Police
Department’s Provisional Chief, was involved in a Motor Vehicle Pursuit.
Lawrence PD received a call from a Credit Union, advising that a subject just attempted to cash a fraudulent check. Dispatch relayed that information to responding units, as well as a description of the suspect.”
“Castro, who had left the police station to renew his driver’s license at the RMV, heard at least a portion of the information that dispatch broadcast and located a subject matching the suspect description provided by dispatch, entering a Black Mercedes. Castro noted that the subject entered the passenger’s side of the vehicle, which was parked on the sidewalk, with another subject in the driver’s seat.”
“Castro relayed his observations to responding units and engaged when the vehicle drove away.”
“Castro did activate his emergency lights and sirens, did drive over a portion of sidewalk, and did drive in the wrong direction on a One-Way Street. What is clear is that Castro did engage in a Motor Vehicle Pursuit.”
“It is also clear that a Motor Vehicle Pursuit in the above instance is a violation of the Lawrence Police Department’s Pursuit Policy. Lastly, dispatch never relayed any information that the offender tried to commit a Bank Robbery or was violent.”
“The pursuit of the offending vehicle was a short duration before the offending vehicle crashed into a guardrail. The offenders fled on foot after the crash, and both offenders were located and arrested a short time later. There were no reported injuries and the only vehicle damaged was the offender’s vehicle.”
“Sgt. Mike Simard, who was the patrol supervisor, responded to the scene to investigate the circumstances, as he is required to do per LPD policy. Simard is also required, per LPD policy, to report any violation of policy to Internal Affairs for review.”
“Simard followed policy and reported the policy violation to Lt. Paul Rossi, who oversees Internal Affairs, on February 3, 2024 (See Exhibit 1, pages 26-27). While Simard did follow policy by notifying Internal Affairs, and his assessment that the incident was a Motor Vehicle Pursuit is correct, Simard also added verbiage outlining his perception that Castro would retaliate against him, citing history between he and Castro.”
Castro, Simard, Officer Smart, and Detective Trainor all completed their report on the
incident on 2/2/24 (See Exhibit 2).
On the morning of 2/3/24, Castro sent a text message to Captain Fabian Guerrero, who serves as the Patrol Commander, requesting a phone call. The text thread shows that Castro found an error in Smart’s report and stated, “All other are good, including Simard’s” (See Exhibit 2, pages 13-15).
Simard amended his report on 2/5/24 (See Exhibit 3, page 1). During Simard’s interview
with Bennett, Simard states he amended his report “a few days later” after reading Castro’s report, explaining his belief that Castro lied when he asserted his (Castro’s)
perception that the incident could have been a Bank Robbery.
Simard goes on to tell Bennett his own perception of what he believes is retaliation.
Simard clearly stated in his report that he drew his weapon when he observed one of the subjects who fled on foot attempting to enter the passenger side of the vehicle. Simard wrote :
“I then observed a male matching the description entering the CR-V and ran over to the
vehicle in full uniform with my firearm drawn. My first thought was the suspect could now be armed and was now jacking the male driver.”
Simard had not received any information from dispatch or anyone else that the suspect was now armed, rather he relied upon his training and nearly 30 years of experience. While Simard’s actions were reasonable and it was right not to question his perception, it is curious why Castro’s perception was not given the same merit. (emphasis added)
On February 7, 2024, Lt. Rossi sent a report to Mayor Brian DePena, advising him of the
incident and need to conduct an internal investigation. (See Exhibit 4).
Lt. Rossi writes that on 2/5/24, the Patrol Commander (Capt. Guerrero) told him that his 2 supervisors (Sgt. Simard and Lt. Trombley) advised him of a policy violation involving Castro, but he (Guerrero) had not read the reports yet. (see Exhibit 4, page 1). This assertion by Rossi is not accurate as Guerrero was made aware and asked to review reports by Castro on 2/2/24 (See Exhibit 2).
Rossi’s report is very descriptive and alleges Untruthfulness by Castro, asserting that
the dispatch communication was very clear. The final paragraph of Rossi’s report
to DePena stated:
“I do not have the authority to investigate these allegations or place Chief Castro on
Administrative Leave while it’s investigated. However, per the Massachusetts Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Commission 555 CMR 1.00: Procedural Rules, I must report this, and it must be investigated. I will submit this summary of the incident and allegations to POST, Mayor DePena, City Attorney Houten, and others assigned to the Mayor’s and City’s Attorney’s Office.”
When Rossi sent the report, via email, he selected a group email that DePena was part of, and the report was sent to unintended recipients. There is no evidence to suggest Rossi intentionally sent the confidential document to unintended recipients, but at a minimum it was careless on his part.
Rossi sent several emails to the mayor using the group email address despite being told, several times, by Octavien Spanner that he was using the wrong email address for the mayor.
Maverick Investigative Services and RCB & Associates reviewed the Peace Officer
Standards and Training Commission (POST) 555 CMR 1:00: Procedural Rules
1.01: Review of Complaints by Agency … states in part.
(1) Transmittal of Complaint by Agency to Commission: The Head of an agency shall, within two days of their receipt of a complaint, which is any credible report, written or oral, evidencing or alleging the misconduct of an officer from a member of the public, personnel at the agency, or any other source, do the following
Rossi is not the head of the agency.
While this complaint was about the head of the agency, Rossi’s responsibility was to report it to the mayor, who is the head of the agency, in the absence of the Chief or if the investigation involves the Chief. Rossi notified the mayor on February 7, 2024. (Exhibit 4).
It appears that the responsibility to notify POST would be with the mayor.
Rossi’s responsibility was fulfilled once he notified the mayor. Rossi took it upon himself to ensure it was emailed to POST and in doing so made a significant error which violates 1:03: Confidentiality of Preliminary Inquiries, which states:
All proceedings and records relating to a preliminary inquiry by the division of standards, including any internal review to determine whether there is sufficient credible evidence to initiate a preliminary inquiry, shall be kept strictly confidential pursuant to M.G.L c. 6E, § 8(c)(2) and M.G.L. c 4, § 7, twenty-sixth, the exemptions to the definitions of public records, except that the executive director may provide evidence which may be used in a criminal proceeding or investigation to the attorney general, the United States Attorney, or a district attorney of competent jurisdiction. Nothing in 555 CMR 1.03 shall prevent the divisions of standards from notifying any other prosecuting attorney, upon reasonable request, of the commencement of the preliminary inquiry and the nature of the alleged conduct at issue.
While there is no evidence to support malicious intent on the part of Rossi, it does appear that Rossi is inclined to jump to conclusions and over zealousness, which is concerning given that he oversees Internal Investigations.