85-Year-Old Tewksbury Woman Accuses Town, Police of Civil Rights Violations

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 35
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
________________________________________
)
ALICE E. OCONNELL,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Town of Tewksbury, Town of Tewksbury Police )
Department, Chief of Police Timothy Sheehan, )
Deputy Chief of Police John S. Voto,
)
Lieutenant Robert Stephens, Lieutenant Ryan
)
Columbus, Sergeant Walter Jop, III, Sergeant
)
Brian Warren, Officer Markus E. McMahon,
)
Officer Eric Hanley, Police Officers John Does )
)
## 1 through 4,
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________________ )
Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-14027
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Alice E. OConnell (Mrs. OConnell complains against the named Defendants
as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.
This is a civil rights action brought by Plaintiff, Alice E. OConnell, against the
Town of Tewksbury, the Tewksbury Police Department (Tewksbury Police Dept.) and
individual Tewksbury police officers based on their violations of Mrs. OConnells Constitutional
and common law rights during and following an incident which occurred at Mrs. OConnells
home on or about May 24, 2013. The complaint alleges that officers of the Tewksbury Police
Dept., acting pursuant to customs, policies and practices of the Town of Tewksbury and the
Tewksbury Police Dept., arrested Mrs. OConnell without probable cause; unlawfully imprisoned
her; subjected her to unwarranted psychological evaluation while in police custody; unlawfully
interrogated her while she was in police custody without advisement of Miranda rights or the
benefit of the statutorily required use of a telephone, thereby obtaining statements from her which
were used against her in court; and made false statements in the resulting police report to hide their
unlawful conduct. The unlawful actions of the officers of the Tewksbury Police Dept. were done in
retaliation for Mrs. OConnells verbal disagreement with the wrongful conduct of a Tewksbury
police officer and in retaliation for her statements made to the Tewksbury police officers that she
would file litigation against the Tewksbury police officer who wrongfully arrested her. The
unlawful actions of the Tewksbury police officers violated Mrs. OConnells rights under the First,
Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Articles 12, 14
and 16 of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution. Mrs. OConnell also asserts
common law claims against the individual Defendants for false arrest, false imprisonment,
malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.
This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988, and the First,
Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, the Massachusetts
Civil Rights Act, M.G.L. c. 12, 11I, and the Constitution and common law of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts. Title 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343 provide federal question jurisdiction over all
federal claims, and Plaintiff invokes this Courts supplemental jurisdiction, pursuant to 28. U.S.C.
1367(a), over any and all state law claims and as against all parties that are so related to claims in
this action within the original jurisdiction of this Court that they form part of the same case and
controversy.
3.
Venue in the District of Massachusetts is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1391(b), as Massachusetts is the judicial district in which all of the events giving rise to this claim
occurred and in which all of the Defendants either reside or conduct business.
NOTICE OF CLAIM
4.
In accordance with M.G.L. c. 258 and M.G.L. c. 258 4, within two years after the
date upon which the cause of action arose, Mrs. OConnell presented her claim in writing to the
Town Manager of Tewksbury, Richard Montouri, on or about December 30, 2014, which claim
was thereafter forwarded to Town of Tewksbury Legal Counsel, Kevin Feely. Six months have
passed since the presentment of Mrs. OConnells claim to the Town Manager and Town Counsel
and neither has denied Mrs. OConnells claim in writing. The failure of the Town Manager and
Town Counsel to deny Mrs. OConnells claim within six months of presentment is deemed a final
denial of her claim, in accordance with M.G.L. c. 258 4.
PARTIES
5.
Plaintiff Alice E. OConnell is an individual citizen of the United States who was, at
all times relevant hereto, residing in the Town of Tewksbury, Middlesex County, Massachusetts.
6.
Defendant Town of Tewksbury is a municipal entity duly organized and chartered
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, with its principle place of business at 1009
Main Street, Tewksbury, Middlesex County, Massachusetts.
7.
Defendant Town of Tewksbury Police Department is a municipal government entity
duly created and organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a principal
place of business at 918 Main Street, Tewksbury, Middlesex County, Massachusetts.
8.
Defendant Timothy Sheehan is the Chief of the Tewksbury Police Dept. (Chief
Sheehan) and is sued in his individual and official capacity. Chief Sheehan is a resident of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was at all pertinent times a duly sworn police officer and the
Tewksbury Chief of Police.
9.
Defendant John S. Voto is the Deputy Chief of the Tewksbury Police Dept.
(Deputy Voto) and is sued in his individual and official capacity. Deputy Voto is a resident of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was at all pertinent times a duly sworn police officer and
the Tewksbury Deputy Chief of Police.
10.
Defendant Lieutenant Robert Stephens (Lt. Stevens), who is sued in his
individual and official capacity, is a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was at all
pertinent times a duly sworn police officer of the Tewksbury Police Department.
11.
Defendant Lieutenant Ryan Columbus (Lt. Columbus), who is sued in his
12.
Defendant Sergeant Walter Jop, III (Sgt. Jop), who is sued in his individual and
official capacity, is a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was at all pertinent
times a duly sworn police officer of the Tewksbury Police Department.
13.
Defendant Sergeant Brian Warren (Sgt. Warren), who is sued in his individual
and official capacity, is a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was at all pertinent
14.
Defendant Officer Markus E. McMahon (Ofc. McMahon), who is sued in his
15.
Defendant Officer Eric Hanley (Ofc. Hanley), who is sued in his individual and
official capacity, is a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and was at all pertinent

16.
Defendant Police Officers John Does ## 1 through 4, whose true identities are not
presently known but may be ascertained during discovery, who are sued in their individual and
official capacities, were at all pertinent times duly sworn police officers of the Tewksbury Police
Department.
FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

17.
Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
18.
At all relevant times hereto, the Town of Tewksbury was the employer of each
individual Defendant.
19.
At all relevant times hereto, Defendant Timothy Sheehan, as Chief of Police,
exercised authority over the Tewksbury Police Dept. and its officers and was a maker of policy as
to standards of conduct and discipline within the Tewksbury Police Dept. Chief Sheehan had the
power to train and discipline officers and the power, authority and duty to hold officers
accountable for any use of excessive, abusive, unjustified and/or unlawful police authority or
power and for the making of false statements of fact in official reports.
20.
At all pertinent times hereto, each individual Defendant acted under color of state
law in his capacity as a police officer and/or policy maker of the Town of Tewksbury and pursuant
to the statutes, ordinances, regulations, policies, customs, practices, and usage of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and/or the Town of Tewksbury.
21.
Each of the above named Defendants are specifically identified and/or mentioned in
police reports and/or police records and/or police recordings as active participants in the incidents
described herein.
22.
Defendant Police Officers John Does ## 1 through 4 were active participants in the
incidents described herein.

23.
Mrs. OConnell was born in 1930. Mrs. OConnell was 82 years old when she was
unlawfully arrested and 83 years old at other times relevant hereto.

24.
On Friday, May 24, 2013, Mrs. OConnell called 911 from her home, fearing for
her safety, telling the Tewksbury police dispatcher that her out of control husband was raising his
fists to her again. Mrs. OConnell requested that her husband be removed from the house.
25.
Ofc. McMahon, Sgt. Jop, Lt. Columbus and Ofc. Hanley responded to Mrs.
OConnells residence at 75 North Billerica Road, where she allowed them entry into the premises.
26.
Ofc. McMahon completed the original police report relating to this incident and the
Tewksbury Police Dept. response thereto (Police Report), dated May 24, 2013.
27.
The Police Report indicates that the officers were dispatched for an out of control
elderly man.
28.
The Police Report indicates that Mrs. OConnell met them upon arrival, stating that
her husband (Thomas) was out of control and needed to be removed from the house.
29.
In accordance with established policies and procedures of the Tewksbury Police
Dept., Mrs. OConnells request for assistance was treated from the outset as a criminal matter
rather than a request for assistance.
30.
After the responding police officers entered the premises, Mrs. OConnell was
directed to go to specific room within her home where she was questioned by Sgt. Jop and other
police officers who were present.
31.
Neither Sgt. Jop nor any other police officer suggested to Mrs. OConnell that she
was suspected of criminal conduct, nor did Sgt. Jop or any other police officer advise Mrs.
OConnell of her Miranda rights prior to questioning her.
6
32.
Without Miranda warnings, Sgt. Jop and the police officers who were present began
asking Mrs. OConnell questions about what had occurred prior to the police officers arrival.
33.
Mrs. OConnell informed the police officers that her husband, Thomas, was
suffering from advanced Alzheimers disease, having been diagnosed with the disease years ago.
34.
Mrs. OConnell informed the police officers that she was Thomass sole caregiver
and that Thomas was becoming increasingly physical with her during any disagreements they would
have.
35.
The Police Report states that Mrs. OConnell informed Sgt. Jop and the police
officers who were present that Thomas suffers from Alzheimers disease and she was afraid that
Thomas might punch her in the mouth.
36.
Although denied by Mrs. OConnell, the Police Report also indicates that Mrs.
OConnell told the police officers who were present that she would stab Thomas in the stomach
with a knife if she had to 9emphasis added) without providing any context for that statement
which she allegedly made to the police.
37.
The Police Report indicates that the totality of the alleged harm to Thomas was a
scratch on his wrist.

38.
The Police Report states that the alleged victim [Thomas] indicated to police that
Mrs. OConnell grabbed his arms very tightly and scratched him causing the bleeding to his right
wrist area.
39.
The Police Report omitted the context of Mrs. OConnell grabbing Thomass arms,
which context Mrs. OConnell supplied during her questioning when she told the police officers who
were present that Thomas was coming towards her and she grabbed his arms to restrain him from
hurting her.
40.
No medical treatment for Thomas was requested or required to tend to his scratched
41.
Although Sgt. Jop was asking Mrs. OConnell what had occurred between herself
wrist.
and Thomas prior to his arrival, he was not listening to what she was telling him.
42.
Sgt. Jop continually interrupted Mrs. OConnell, making inaccurate and false
statements about the events which took place prior to his arrival (to which he was not a witness).
43.
Sgt. Jop continually disagreed with the statements being made by Mrs. OConnell
and was continually trying to put words in her mouth which were not true and which she did not
say.
44.
Throughout the interrogation by Sgt. Jop, Mrs. OConnell consistently and
unequivocally denied that she had harmed her husband in any way and continually stated that she
was not aware of any harm done to Thomass wrist.
45.
Sgt. Jop engaged Mrs. OConnell in an argument relating to the events which took
place prior to his arrival rather than simply asking her questions about what had occurred.
46.
During her interrogation, Mrs. OConnell informed Sgt. Jop that she objected to the
false statements he was making about what had transpired prior to his arrival.
47.
During her interrogation, Mrs. OConnell told Sgt. Jop to stop putting words in her
mouth which were not true and which she did not say.
48.
In response to Mrs. OConnells stated objection to his wrongful conduct, Sgt. Jop
told Mrs. OConnell that she was being awfully pushy.

49.
When Mrs. OConnell responded that he was the one being pushy, Sgt. Jop
retaliated by immediately approaching her, grasping her by the arm and forcibly turning her around
by one arm while placing handcuffs on her without telling her why he was doing so.
50.
Mrs. OConnell told Sgt. Jop that she did not do anything and asked him what he
was doing.
51.
Sgt. Jop told her to be quiet but he did not answer her questions.
52.
In further retaliation, Sgt. Jop intentionally placed the handcuffs on Mrs. OConnell
in a manner which was extremely tight.

53.
Mrs. OConnell immediately told Sgt. Jop and the other officers that her wrists were
hurting her.
54.
Another police officer who was present suggested to Sgt. Jop that he use different
handcuffs than the ones which he had placed on Mrs. OConnell as they were very tight and her
wrists were turning red.
55.
Sgt. Jop ignored this suggestion and told the other police officer to just put Mrs.
OConnell in the car.

56.
Sgt. Job secured the handcuffs so tightly on Mrs. OConnells wrists that they
caused numbness to her arms and wrists, pain and redness.

57.
Without containing any information regarding Sgt. Jops argumentative and
taunting interactions with Mrs. OConnell prior to his arresting her, the Police Report states only
that while asking Mrs. OConnell questions in regards to the events that had taken place, she
became very agitated and loud with us and demanded we take her husband away.
58.
Without containing any information regarding Sgt. Jops argumentative and
taunting interactions with Mrs. OConnell prior to his arresting her, the Police Report states only
that [d]uring this time, Mrs. OConnell was placed under arrest for domestic A&B on her husband
Thomas.
59.
Neither Sgt. Jop nor any of the other police officers at the scene had a warrant or
probable cause for Mrs. OConnells arrest.

60.
Mrs. OConnell and Thomas had been married for 57 years at the time of this
incident.
61.
Mrs. OConnell had been Thomass sole caregiver since he was diagnosed with
Alzheimers, approximately five years prior to the time of this incident.

62.
Thomas was not requesting that Mrs. OConnell be arrested.
63.
Sgt. Jop arrested Mrs. OConnell despite the fact that the scratch on Thomass wrist
was more consistent with Mrs. OConnell defending herself against Thomass approach, as she had
stated.
64.
Sgt. Jop arrested Mrs. OConnell despite the fact that he had been informed that
Thomas was suffering from advanced Alzheimers disease and that Mrs. OConnell was afraid that
Thomas might punch her in the mouth.
65.
Sgt. Jops determination that probable cause existed to arrest Mrs. OConnell was
contrary to the credible information and evidence which existed at the scene of the incident and
which was brought to the attention of Sgt. Jop prior to his decision to arrest Mrs. OConnell.
66.
Sgt. Jop arrested Mrs. OConnell after engaging in an argument with her and telling
her that she was being awfully pushy for verbally disagreeing with and opposing his wrongful
conduct and his false statements regarding what had occurred between Thomas and Mrs.
OConnell prior to Sgt. Jops arrival.
67.
Sgt. Jops arrest of Mrs. OConnell was based not upon probable cause but was
instead motivated by Mrs. OConnell verbal objections to his wrongful behavior.
10
68.
There were no witnesses to the alleged assault of Thomas, which took place prior to
the arrival of the police officers, other than Mrs. OConnell and Thomas (who was suffering from
advanced Alzheimers disease and exhibited memory loss symptoms at the scene).
69.
Neither Sgt. Jop nor any other police officer present at the scene would tell Mrs.
OConnell why she was being arrested, despite her numerous requests.
70.
After her arrest, Mrs. OConnell told Sgt. Jop that she would sue him for arresting
her because she did not do anything wrong and it was not right that she was being arrested.
71.
The statements made by Mrs. OConnell at her home while being questioned by
Sgt. Jop and the other police officers were subsequently used against Mrs. OConnell in court in
the prosecution of the criminal charges against her.
72.
Following Sgt. Jops wrongful arrest of Mrs. OConnell, in their efforts to protect a
fellow police officer from the consequences of his wrongful conduct, and in retaliation for her
verbally objecting to Sgt. Jops wrongful actions and in retaliation for her statements that she
would sue him for wrongfully arresting her, the named Defendants thereafter took action to ensure
that Mrs. OConnell would be prosecuted to the greatest extent possible, since Mrs. OConnells
conviction of a criminal offense would validate the original unlawful arrest.
BOOKING
73.
The booking of Mrs. OConnell was recorded by the Tewksbury Police Dept. by
means of a video/audio recorder.

74.
Upon arrival at the Tewksbury police station for her booking, Mrs. OConnell
repeatedly told the police officers present that the handcuffs were hurting her.
75.
When the handcuffs were taken off of Mrs. OConnell in the police station, Mrs.
OConnell told the police officers who were present to look at her hand, telling them that the
11
handcuffs nearly broke it.

76.
Lt. Stephens conducted the booking of Mrs. OConnell.
77.
The Police Report Narrative (prepared by Ofc. McMahon) falsely states that Lt.
Stephens advised the subject of her rights.

78.
The Police Report falsely indicates that Lt. Robert A. Stephens advised Mrs.
OConnell of her rights on 5/24/2013 at 1226.

79.
While being held in custody and questioned by Tewksbury police officers during
her booking and subsequent imprisonment, Mrs. OConnell was never advised of her Miranda
rights.
80.
The Police Report falsely indicates that Mrs. OConnell used the telephone to make
a call on 5/24/2013 at 1226.

81.
While being held in custody and questioned by Tewksbury police officers during
her booking and subsequent imprisonment, Mrs. OConnell was never informed of her statutory
right to use the telephone while being detained by the Tewksbury police and was not permitted to
use the telephone to call her attorney (or anyone else).
82.
During her booking and during the entire time of her imprisonment, the Tewksbury
police officers continued speaking with and questioning Mrs. OConnell without advising her of
her Miranda rights, with the intent of using the statements made by Mrs. OConnell against her in
criminal proceedings.
83.
In fact, Lt. Stevens, the booking officer, prepared a Supplemental Narrative For
Lieutenant Robert A. Stephens (Supplemental Narrative) which was later added to the original
Police Report, which contained a one-sided, out-of-context recitation of each and every statement
made by Mrs. OConnell during her booking and imprisonment which could possibly be used
12
against her, all of which statements were made without the advisement of Miranda rights or the
benefit of a phone call.
SUPPLEMENTAL NARRATIVE
84.
The Supplemental Narrative indicates that it was completed on 5/28/2013 which
was four days following the incident and the morning of Mrs. OConnells scheduled arraignment.
85.
Upon information and belief, Lt. Stephens completed the Supplemental Narrative
after viewing and listening to the recorded booking of Mrs. OConnell, which occurred on May 24,
2013.
86.
When composing the Supplemental Narrative, Lt. Stephens selectively included
each and every statement made by Mrs. OConnell during her imprisonment by the Tewksbury
Police Dept. which could by negatively construed against her, without including the context of any
of those statements, which statements were all made without her being advised of her Miranda
rights and without being given the benefit of a phone call.
87.
The Supplemental Narrative subjectively states that Mrs. OConnell was in a very
agitated state when she arrived at Tewksbury Headquarters.

88.
The Supplemental Narrative fails to include the stated source of her alleged
agitation, which she repeatedly tells the police officers was based upon the fact that she had been
wrongfully arrested and she had not been notified as to why she was arrested or why she was being
detained by the Tewksbury Police Dept. after calling them for assistance with her out-of-control
husband.
89.
The Supplemental Narrative subjectively states that Mrs. OConnell was making
threats of suing the police officers that arrested her and making fun of them.
90.
The Supplemental Report does not provide the context of the alleged threats to sue
or Mrs. OConnells making fun of any officers.

13
91.
During her booking, Mrs. OConnell did state that she would be suing the officer
who falsely arrested her because she should not have been arrested.
92.
Sgt. Jop, the officer who had engaged in argumentative and taunting behavior
towards Mrs. OConnell prior to wrongfully arresting her, was present at the Tewksbury police
station during Mrs. OConnells booking and at various times would stand in the doorway of the
booking area and smile at Mrs. OConnell.
93.
At the time of her arrest and booking, Mrs. OConnell did not know the name of the
police officer who arrested her. When speaking to the other police officers who were present about
suing the officer who falsely arrested her, she referred to him as the big fat guy and the guy that
was causing all the problems.
94.
In response, an as yet unidentified police officer who was present questioned Mrs.
OConnell by asking her to whom she was referring. When Mrs. OConnell responded by pointing
to and identifying the police officer who arrested her who was standing in the doorway, the police
officer who posed the question to her informed another as yet unidentified police officer who was
present that it was Sergeant Jop.
95.
Mrs. OConnell stated to the police officers who were present that [h]e thinks hes
gonna get away with it but hes not, or words to that effect, to which an officer present at the
scene asked Who?
96.
The Supplemental Narrative subjectively states that during booking Mrs. OConnell
then became angry at her husband, (Thomas OConnell) blaming him for being arrested. She
stated that she was not going to be nice anymore and that he better not be at the house when she is
released. She further stated that he will be sorry and she isnt going to be nice anymore. She further
stated that she was not going to feed him and see how he likes that.
14
97.
The Supplemental Narrative fails to include the fact that Mrs. OConnell told the
police officers present at the booking, including Lt. Stevens, the author of the Supplemental
Narrative, that Im just mad to which Lt. Stephens replies to Mrs. OConnell Id be mad if I
was arrested too.
98.
The Supplemental Narrative falsely states that Mrs. OConnell was uncooperative,
argumentative
99.
To the contrary, Mrs. OConnell obeyed all of the police officer directives,
answered all questions posed to her and engaged in continual conversation with the officers
present.
100.
During the entire booking process, there were potentially only two instances which
could possibly be construed as Mrs. OConnell being "uncooperative and argumentative.

101.
The first instance was when Mrs. OConnell initially did not want to take off her
religious cross necklace based on its religious significance to her but she then agreed to do so once
she was assured it would be kept safe.
102.
The other instance was when Lt. Stephens asked Mrs. OConnell Do you want to
take a picture? to which Mrs. OConnell responded No. Forget it, I dont want no pictures.
103.
Mrs. OConnell was not thereafter directed to have her picture taken.
104.
During her booking, Lt. Stephens, while speaking to Mrs. OConnell, tells her this
isnt a big crime downplaying the seriousness of the situation, all the while intending to compose
a Supplemental Narrative containing any and all statements she made which could possibly be
negatively construed against her to be used to prosecute criminal charges against her in court.
105.
The Supplemental Report did not contain the facts that during booking: (a) Mrs.
OConnell repeatedly stated that her wrists were injured due to the overly-tight handcuffs and
15
repeatedly told officers to look at her injured wrists, stating in one instance Look at my hand.
Holy God, they nearly broke it; (b) Mrs. OConnell repeatedly stated that she was not told why
she was arrested; (c) Mrs. OConnell repeatedly stated that she did not do anything to hurt her
husband, stating that she pushed him away; and (d) Mrs. OConnell repeatedly stated that the
police officers who were at her home would not show her the alleged injury to her husband (a
scratch on his wrist).
106.
After repeatedly asking why she was arrested, an officer present during the booking
told Mrs. OConnell that her husband had a cut on his arm.
107.
Each and every alleged statement made by Mrs. OConnell which Lt. Stevens
included in the subjective, one-sided, out-of-context, Supplemental Narrative was made by Mrs.
OConnell while in police custody, without being advised of her Miranda rights and without being
advised of her statutory right to use the telephone.
108.
Each and every alleged statement made by Mrs. OConnell which Lt. Stevens
included in the subjective, one-sided, out-of-context, Supplemental Narrative was used against
Mrs. OConnell in court when the prosecuting attorney later read Lt. Stevens Supplemental
Narrative to the Court during her arraignment.
109.
After booking, at or about 1300, Mrs. OConnell was then locked in a holding cell
at the Tewksbury police station.

110.
After locking Mrs. OConnell in the holding cell and when walking into the
adjoining room where Sgt. Jop was located, an as yet unidentified police officer who had engaged
in discussions with Mrs. OConnell during her booking and who was entrusted with her care refers
to Mrs. OConnell as a lunatic when speaking with another as yet unidentified officer, both of
whom were present during the booking and imprisonment of Mrs. OConnell.
16
PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION
111.
At or about 2:45 p.m., while peacefully remaining locked in the holding cell, Mrs.
OConnell was approached by and once again handcuffed by an as yet unidentified Tewksbury
police officer and was brought, via ambulance, to Lowell General Hospital Saints Campus, to
undergo an unwarranted psychiatric evaluation.
112.
Mrs. OConnell did not request or consent to this psychiatric evaluation.
113.
While at Lowell General Hospital, Mrs. OConnell remained handcuffed, much of
the time handcuffed to a stretcher, with a Tewksbury police officer by her side, all within the
public view.
114.
The intake nurse at Lowell General Hospital indicates in her medical report
(Medical Report) that apparently patient was arrested today for stabbing her husband who has
Alzheimers. Patient denies stabbing her husband.
115.
It was not Mrs. OConnell who told the intake nurse that she had been arrested that
day for stabbing her husband.

116.
Upon information and belief, it was an as yet unidentified Tewksbury police officer
who falsely informed the intake nurse that Mrs. OConnell had been arrested that day for stabbing
her husband.
117.
The Tewksbury police officer falsely informed the intake nurse that Mrs. OConnell
had stabbed her husband that day in an effort to lead the intake nurse and other medical personnel
conducting Mrs. OConnells psychiatric evaluation to believe that Mrs. OConnell was violent
and homicidal in order to have Mrs. OConnell involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility
based upon her alleged likelihood to hurt others if left unrestrained.
118.
If the medical personnel conducting Mrs. OConnells psychiatric examination had
determined that she was violent or homicidal that day, then this finding would have helped the
17
Tewksbury police officers in their efforts to ensure that Mrs. OConnell was convicted of a
criminal charge, thereby validating their wrongful arrest, imprisonment and malicious prosecution
of her.
119.
Mrs. OConnell did not stab her husband.
120.
The Police Report does not state that a knife was used to harm Mrs. OConnells
husband or that Mrs. OConnell had stabbed her husband on that day.
121.
The Medical Report states that Mrs. OConnell told the nurse that the police came
to the house and the police told her [Mrs. OConnell] that her husband had a knife wound to his
hand.
122.
The Medical Report states that Mrs. OConnell denied stabbing her husband with a
123.
The Medical Report describes Mrs. OConnell as cooperative and pleasant.
124.
The Lowell General Hospital medical personnel who conducted Mrs. OConnells
knife.
psychiatric evaluation that day determined that she was not suicidal, homicidal or psychotic.
125.
After receiving a mental health and medical clearance from Lowell General
Hospital medical personnel, Mrs. OConnell was then transported back to the Tewksbury police
station, where she was again locked in a holding cell.
126.
Mrs. OConnell was released on her personal recognizance at or about 8:00 p.m. on
May 24, 2013, after posting bail and agreeing to appear at Lowell District Court at 8:30 on May
28, 2013, for her arraignment.
CHARGES AND ARRAIGNMENT
127.
On or about May 24, 2013, Sgt. Warren requested that a criminal complaint issue
against Mrs. OConnell charging her with Domestic Assault and Battery against her husband,
18
Thomas OConnell, by use of her Personal Weapons (Hands/Feet/Etc.) and with making a
Threat to Commit a crime, based upon the incident which occurred at her home on May 24, 2013.
128.
Sgt. Warren swore out the complaint stating that on May 24, 2013, Mrs. OConnell
did assault and beat Thomas OConnell, in violation of G.L. c.265 sec. 13(a), even though he knew
that to be false.
129.
Sgt. Warren swore out the complaint stating that on May 24, 2013, Mrs. OConnell
did threaten to commit a crime against the person or property of another, to wit: to Stab, in
violation of G.L. c. 275 sec. 2, even though he knew that to be false.
130.
On the morning of May 28, 2013, Mrs. OConnell arrived at the assigned courtroom
at Lowell District Court for her scheduled arraignment, which was the Tuesday morning following
the long Memorial Day Weekend.
131.
Sgt. Warren was also present in the courtroom where the scheduled arraignments
would take place.

132.
As the court personnel and gallery waited for the judges arrival to begin the
scheduled arraignments, Sgt. Warren, in a loud voice which could be heard by all of those present
in the courtroom, commented in a joking manner to court personnel about the holiday weekend
that had just passed, laughing and stating that [i]t was a wild weekend, we had elderly people
beating on each other or words to that effect.
133.
During her arraignment, Mrs. OConnell was charged with Assault and Battery and
making a Threat to Commit a Crime.

134.
The Assault and Battery charge resulted from an alleged scratch to Thomass arm.
135.
The Threat to Commit a Crime charge resulted from an alleged statement made by
Mrs. OConnell to the police while being questioned by the police at her home.
19
136.
The alleged threat, as stated in the Police Report was a follows: Mrs. OConnell
also noted that Thomas suffers from Alzheimers disease and was afraid that Thomas might punch
her in the mouth. Mrs. OConnell also stated that she would stab Thomas in the stomach with a
knife if she had too [sic].
137.
The Police Report does not indicate that Mrs. OConnell ever made a threat to stab
Thomas without legal justification.

138.
At Mrs. OConnells arraignment, the prosecuting Assistant District Attorney read
selected portions of the Police Report and the Supplemental Narrative prepared by Lt. Stevens to
the presiding judge in her efforts to criminally prosecute Mrs. OConnell.
139.
Mrs. OConnell pled Not Guilty during her arraignment on the baseless charges.
140.
Following her arraignment, a lengthy newspaper article titled Tewksbury Woman,
82, Faces Assault Charges Against Husband, 87 was published in the Lowell Sun newspaper, which
repeated much of the information contained within the original Police Report and the Supplemental
Narrative.
141.
Mrs. OConnell has been a resident of Tewksbury for over 50 years.
142.
Mrs. OConnells wrongful arrest and imprisonment, the unwarranted psychiatric
evaluation, and the publication of the newspaper article, which repeated many of the subjective, onesided, out-of-context statements made within the Police Report and the Supplemental Narrative
caused Mrs. OConnell great stress and humiliation in her community.
143.
Mrs. OConnell was required to retain a defense attorney, incur legal and other
expenses, and to appear in court on several occasions to defend against the false arrest and
imprisonment and the malicious prosecution of charges.
144.
Although Mrs. OConnell knew she was innocent, she was fearful that she could be
convicted of the false charges.

20
145.
Since there was no evidence to support the Assault and Battery charge, the
Commonwealth eventually agreed to dismiss the Assault and Battery charge against Mrs.
OConnell.
146.
On August 21, 2013, Mrs. OConnell submitted a Motion to Dismiss the remaining
Threat to Commit a Crime charged based on the fact that the information presented by the
complainant [Sgt. Warren] does not establish probable cause to believe that the defendant [Mrs.
OConnell] committed a criminal offense and that the Application for Complaint filed by the
Tewksbury Police Department does not contain sufficient basis for the Complaint to have issued.
147.
After hearing on August 23, 2013, the Court granted Mrs. OConnells Motion and
dismissed the Threat to Commit a Crime charge based upon the lack of probable cause.
148.
On October 7, 2013, the Court reaffirmed its prior dismissal of the Threat to
Commit a Crime charge following another hearing on the Commonwealths Motion for
Reconsideration.
149.
During the criminal proceeding, prior to the dismissal of the charges against her,
Mrs. OConnell was very disturbed to learn that Tewksbury police officers had falsely stated in the
Police Report that she had been advised of her Miranda rights and that she had used the telephone
during her detainment because she knew those stated facts to be false.
150.
In her effort to attack the credibility of the Tewksbury policer officers who were
making statements against her and to defend herself against what appeared to be the Tewksbury
Police Departments efforts to secure a wrongful conviction against her, Mrs. OConnell sought
evidence to show that the Tewksbury police officers made false statements in the Police Report.
FAILURE TO PROVIDE EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE
151.
The Police Report falsely indicates that Mrs. OConnell was read her Miranda
21
rights on 05/24/2013 at 1226 and that she used the telephone on 05/24/2013 at 1226, prior to being
secured at 1300.
152.
During the criminal proceedings against Mrs. OConnell, on or about July 25, 2013,
the Court granted Mrs. OConnells Motion for Preservation of Evidence and Production of
Evidence, wherein Mrs. OConnell requested evidence including but not limited to all documents,
911 tapes, booking tapes, tapes of recorded telephone calls and videotapes relating to the May 24,
2013, arrest of Mrs. OConnell and her subsequent detainment.
153.
During the criminal proceedings against Mrs. OConnell, on or about August 7,
2013, Mrs. OConnell forwarded to Sgt. Warren at the Tewksbury Police Dept. the Motion for
Preservation of Evidence and the Motion for Production of Evidence which had been allowed by
the Court, requesting that she be provided with the requested evidence.
154.
This request and the accompanying Court orders were ignored by the Tewksbury
Police Dept., which did not respond to the request and failed to produce any of the requested
evidence to Mrs. OConnell.
155.
Following the dismissal of the charges against Mrs. OConnell, still bothered by the
fact that the Tewksbury police officers had made false statements against her, on or about April 10,
2014, Mrs. OConnell requested the same documents which she had previously requested during
the criminal proceedings against her, this time making a Massachusetts Public Records Request
addressed to the Keeper of Records of the Tewksbury Police Dept. This Public Records Request
also requested any evidence of the advisement of Mrs. OConnells Miranda rights and any
evidence related to the availability of a telephone for her use during her imprisonment.
156.
On or about May 16, 2014, in response to the Public Records Request, Deputy
Chief Voto, of the Tewksbury Police Dept., provided the audio recording of the 911 call which
22
Mrs. OConnell made to the Tewksbury Police Dept. on May 24, 2013, wherein Mrs. OConnell
requested assistance with her out of control husband.
157.
However, Deputy Voto did not produce the booking video, explaining in his
response [a]s far as the booking video, which involves most of your request I was unable to obtain
this video. As you were told on the phone the week of your request the person responsible for the
records of the booking video has been on Medical Leave for approximately two months. I was able
to coordinate with him, to research this matter. After he researched the incident (May 24, 2013) he
found that the video from that period was not saved due to some technical difficulties. Therefore I
am unable to produce this video because I do not have it.
158.
The 911 audio tape which was produced confirms that Ms. OConnell called the
police, fearing for her safety, requesting that her husband, Tom, be removed from the house right
away. She told the dispatcher that Tom had Alzheimers and that he was putting his fists up to her
again. She stated that if he kicked her or anything again she would hit him with something. She
reiterated that she wanted him out of the house.
159.
On or about June 3, 2013, in response to Deputy Votos failure to produce the
booking video, Mrs. OConnell then requested specific information about the technical difficulties
relating to the missing booking video (specifically Could you please provide further information
regarding the technical difficulties which resulted in the Departments inability to produce this
information? What technical difficulties? Did the technical difficulties occur before, during or after
Mr. OConnells booking? Was the booking ever recorded? Did the technical difficulties span a
longer period of time or only during the time of Ms. OConnells booking?) and requested the
telephone records which pertained to the phone used by Mrs. OConnell to place her telephone call
(specifically Since the booking tape is not available, please provide the telephone records which
23
pertain to the telephone used by Ms. OConnell to place her telephone call while being detained at
the Tewksbury Police Department on 05/24/2013 at 1226 (i.e. information relating to the telephone
number which she called).
160.
Mrs. OConnell was never provided with any information regarding the telephone
call which she allegedly made from the police station or the facts regarding the alleged booking
tape technical difficulties, but by some means unknown to Mrs. OConnell, Deputy Voto was
thereafter able to overcome the technical difficulties and locate the booking tape, which was then
provided to Mrs. OConnell.
161.
On or about July 30, 2014, after her review of the booking tape did not corroborate
the Tewksbury police officers statements in the Police Report that she was read her Miranda
rights or that she made a telephone call during her booking and detainment, Mrs. OConnell once
again requested the that the Tewksbury Police Dept. provide her with information relating to the
telephone call which she purportedly made during her imprisonment.
162.
By letter dated August 20, 2014, Deputy Voto responded that he had researched all
the items that Mrs. OConnell had requested, stating that [a]s per your request, I was unable to
find any outgoing call from your client while she was at the Tewksbury Police Department.
163.
Despite numerous requests by Mrs. OConnell and despite purported searches
conducted by the Tewksbury Police Dept., the Tewksbury Police Dept. has not been able to
provide any evidence which corroborates that Mrs. OConnell was read her Miranda rights during
her booking, that she was informed of her statutory right to make a telephone call during her
imprisonment, or that she made a telephone call during her detainment.
24
164.
In fact, all available evidence corroborates Mrs. OConnells statements that she
was not read her Miranda rights, that she was not told that she could make a telephone call and that
she did not make a telephone call, as falsely alleged by the Tewksbury police officers.
165.
The Tewksbury Police Dept. and its police officers failed to provide this
exculpatory evidence to Mrs. OConnell during the criminal proceedings against her.
166.
Defendants unlawful actions described herein were done willfully, knowingly and
with the specific intent to deprive Plaintiff of her constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
167.
As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendants, Mrs. OConnell suffered
injuries, damages, great pain and suffering, severe mental anguish, emotional distress, shock,
fright, infliction of physical trauma and illness, severe anxiety, sleeplessness, gastrointestinal
problems, significant weight loss, humiliation, indignities and embarrassment, degradation, injury
to reputation and loss of enjoyment of activities with family and others.
168.
Mrs. OConnell remains upset that she was wrongfully arrested and falsely charged
with crimes she did not commit.
COUNT I
Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983
(All Defendants and Does ## 1 through 4)
169.
170.
By unlawfully arresting and imprisoning Mrs. OConnell without a warrant or
probable cause because she verbally objected to Sgt. Jops wrongful conduct and because she
stated to the Tewksbury police officers that she would sue the Tewksbury police officer who
unlawfully arrested her, the Defendants named herein violated Mrs. OConnells clearly
25
established constitutional rights to engage in protected free speech without being subjected to
retaliation, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
By unlawfully arresting Mrs. OConnell using unreasonable force, without a
171.
warrant or probable cause, by falsely imprisoning her, by forcing her to undergo an unwarranted
psychiatric evaluation while in police custody, and by maliciously causing her to be prosecuted,
the Defendants named herein deprived Mrs. OConnell of the clearly established right to due
process of law, the right to be secure in her person and property and to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures, guaranteed by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
172.
By unlawfully coercing statements from Mrs. OConnell which were used against
her in court, the Defendants named herein deprived Mrs. OConnell of the clearly established right
not to be compelled to be a witness against herself, guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution.
173.
As a direct and proximate result the Defendants conduct, Mrs. OConnell suffered
the damages described herein.
COUNT II
Civil Conspiracy to Violate 42 U.S.C. 1983
(Defendants Chief Sheehan, Deputy Chief Voto, Lt. Stephens, Lt. Columbus,
Sgt. Jop, Sgt. Warren, Ofc. McMahon, Ofc. Hanley, Does ## 1 through 4)
174.
175.
By their actions set forth above, Defendants Chief Sheehan, Deputy Chief Voto, Lt.
Stephens, Lt. Columbus, Sgt. Jop, Sgt. Warren, Ofc. McMahon, Ofc. Hanley, and Does ## 1
through 4 knowingly, willfully and intentionally conspired to and did deprive Mrs. OConnell of
her clearly established rights guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to
26
the United States Constitution and Articles 12 and 16 of the Declaration of Rights of the
Massachusetts Constitution. In furtherance of this conspiracy, Defendants falsely arrested and
imprisoned Mrs. OConnell, unlawfully coerced statements from her while she was in police
custody which would be used against her in court, subjected her to unwarranted psychological
evaluation, distorted facts, made false statements about the events which took place, created
unsubstantiated criminal charges against Mrs. OConnell, assisted in the prosecution of
unsubstantiated criminal charges against Mrs. OConnell, and failed to disclose exculpatory
evidence to Mrs. OConnell during the criminal proceedings against her, all for the purpose of
depriving Mrs. OConnell of her clearly established constitutional rights and then covering up their
deprivation of Mrs. OConnells clearly established constitutional rights.
176.
COUNT III
42 U.S.C. 1983 Supervisory Liability
(Town of Tewksbury, Tewksbury Police Dept. and Chief Sheehan)
177.
178.
The Town of Tewksbury, the Tewksbury Police Dept. and Chief Sheehan are
responsible for the training, supervision and discipline of the Tewksbury police officers, including
the Defendants named in this Complaint.
179.
The Town of Tewksbury, Tewksbury Police Dept. and Chief Sheehan, with reckless
and callous indifference to the violation of individual rights, failed to provide the Tewksbury
police officers, including the Defendants named in this Complaint, with adequate training and
supervision with respect to the Tewksbury police officers actions in situations including, but not
limited to: (a) their response to an individuals request for assistance; (b) the proper investigation
27
and resolution of domestic disagreements; (c) their response to individuals suffering from
Alzheimers disease and their caretakers; (d) the lawful arrest and detainment of individuals; (e)
the use of proper force when arresting and detaining individuals; (f) the lawful interrogation of
individuals within their custody; (g) the statutory and constitutional rights of individuals within
their custody; (h) the appropriateness of taking individuals in their custody for psychological
evaluation; (i) the truthful completion of police reports and official records; (j) the required
elements of crimes which are included in the police officers Complaint Applications; and (k) the
obligation of the Tewksbury police officers to disclose exculpatory evidence (including evidence
which reflects on credibility) to criminal defendants during criminal proceedings.
180.
By their failure to train and supervise the Defendant police officers named within
this Complaint, the Town of Tewksbury, Tewksbury Police Dept. and Chief Sheehan caused the
various Defendants named within this Complaint to unlawfully arrest and imprison Mrs.
OConnell without a warrant or probable cause, to wrongfully subject her to unwarranted
psychological evaluation, to deny her statutory rights while in police custody, and to unlawfully
coerce statements from her which were used against her in court, all in retaliation for her verbal
objections to the wrongful conduct of Sgt. Jop and in retaliation for her statement that she would
sue the police officer who wrongfully arrested her, all in violation of her rights under the First,
Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
181.
COUNT IV
42 U.S.C. 1983 Monell Claim
(Town of Tewksbury, Tewksbury Police Dept. and Chief Sheehan)
182.
28
183.
Prior to May 24, 2013, the Town of Tewksbury, the Tewksbury Police Dept. and
Chief Sheehan developed and maintained policies or customs with deliberate indifference to the
constitutional rights of persons in Tewksbury, which caused violations of Mrs. OConnells
constitutional rights.
184.
It was the policy, practice and/or custom of the Town of Tewksbury, Tewksbury
Police Dept. and Chief Sheehan to inadequately supervise, monitor and train its police officers,
including the Defendants named in this Complaint, with respect to the Tewksbury police officers
actions in situations including, but not limited to: (a) their response to an individuals request for
assistance; (b) the proper investigation and resolution of domestic disagreements; (c) their response
to individuals suffering from Alzheimers disease and their caretakers; (d) the lawful arrest and
detainment of individuals; (e) the use of proper force when arresting and detaining individuals; (f)
the lawful interrogation of individuals within their custody; (g) the statutory and constitutional
rights of individuals within their custody; (h) the appropriateness of taking individuals in their
custody for psychological evaluation; (i) the truthful completion of police reports and official
records; (j) the required elements of crimes which are included in the police officers Complaint
Applications; and (k) their obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence (including evidence which
reflects on credibility) to criminal defendants during criminal proceedings.
185.
It was the policy, practice and/or custom of the Town of Tewksbury, Tewksbury
Police Dept. and Chief Sheehan to condone and permit its police officers, including the Defendants
named in this complaint, to unlawfully arrest and imprison individuals without a warrant or
probable cause; to use excessive force when arresting individuals; to conduct unlawful
interrogations of individuals; to unlawfully coerce statements from individuals which are used
against them in court; to fail to advise individuals within their custody of their statutory right to use
29
the telephone while being detained; to subject individuals to unwarranted psychiatric evaluation
while in police custody; to falsify police reports and official records; to maliciously prosecute
individuals; and to fail to provide exculpatory evidence to criminal defendants during criminal
proceedings.
186.
The policy, practice and/or custom of the Town of Tewksbury, Tewksbury Police
Dept. and Chief Sheehan in failing to train and supervise its police officers and in condoning and
encouraging the police conduct set forth above caused the Defendants named in this Complaint to
unlawfully arrest and imprison Mrs. OConnell without a warrant or probable cause; to use
excessive force when arresting Mrs. OConnell; to conduct unlawful interrogations of Mrs.
OConnell; to unlawfully coerce statements from Mrs. OConnell which are used against her in
court; to fail to advise Mrs. OConnell of her statutory right to use the telephone while being
detained; to subject Mrs. OConnell to unwarranted psychiatric evaluation while in police custody;
to falsify police reports and official records; to maliciously prosecute Mrs. OConnell; and to fail
to provide exculpatory evidence to Mrs. OConnell during criminal proceedings against her, all in
violation of Mrs. OConnells rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution.
187.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants conduct, Mrs. OConnell suffered
COUNT V
Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, M.G.L. c. 12, 11I
(All Defendants and Does ## 1 through 4)
188.
189.
At all relevant times, the Defendants, acting closely together and under color of
state law, deprived Mrs. OConnell of her rights guaranteed by the Massachusetts Constitution and
30
Declaration of Rights and rights secured by state law, including but not limited to (a) Mrs.
OConnells clearly established constitutional right to engage in protected speech without being
subjected to retaliation under Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, (b) Mrs.
OConnells clearly established right not to be compelled to accuse or furnish evidence against
herself under Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, and (c) Mrs. OConnells
clearly established constitutional right to be free from unlawful and false arrest and malicious
prosecution under Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
190.
Mrs. OConnell engaged in protected speech when she verbally objected to the Sgt.
Jops wrongful conduct and when she told him and other police officers during her booking at the
Tewksbury police station that she was going to sue the police officer who unlawfully arrested her.
191.
Defendants violated Mrs. OConnells constitutional rights, including without
limitation those rights set forth in Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, to engage
in protected speech without being subjected to retaliation, when they unlawfully arrested and
imprisoned her without probable case and initiated a criminal complaint against her in retaliation
for her engaging in protected speech.
192.
limitation those rights set forth in Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, to be free
from unlawful searches and seizures when they, without a warrant or probable cause, arrested and
imprisoned Mrs. OConnell and initiated baseless charges against Mrs. OConnell, which
constituted legal process.
193.
limitation those rights set forth in Article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, not to be
compelled to accuse or furnish evidence against herself when they unlawfully coerced from Mrs.
31
OConnell the alleged statements she made while in the custody of the police, without the
advisement of Miranda rights and without the benefit of her statutory right to use the telephone,
which statements were included in the Police Report and in Lt. Stevens Supplemental Narrative,
and which statements were used against her in court in the prosecution of the criminal charges
against her.
194.
There was no probable cause for the arrest, imprisonment or criminal charges
brought against Mrs. OConnell.

195.
The unlawful criminal charges brought against Mrs. OConnell were terminated in
her favor.
196.
The violations of Mrs. OConnells constitutional rights were accomplished through
threats, intimidation, or coercion.

197.
All of the Defendants unlawful conduct occurred under color of state law and
while they were acting in their capacities as Tewksbury police officers.

198.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants conduct, Mrs. OConnell
suffered damages described herein.
COUNT VI
False Arrest and False Imprisonment
199.
200.
Defendants Chief Sheehan, Deputy Chief Voto, Lt. Stephens, Lt. Columbus, Sgt.
Jop, Sgt. Warren, Ofc. McMahon, Ofc. Hanley, and Does ## 1 through 4 unlawfully arrested and
falsely imprisoned Mrs. OConnell without a warrant or probable cause.
32
As a result of Mrs. OConnells false arrest, she was falsely imprisoned for
201.
approximately nine (9) hours, forced to endure an unwarranted psychiatric evaluation while
handcuffed to a stretcher at Lowell General Hospital in public view, and was forced to prepare for
and attend many court hearings to defend herself against the baseless charges against her.
202.
On or about August 23, 2013, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts agreed to
dismiss the Assault and Battery charge because there was no evidence to substantiate the charge,
and the Court dismissed the Threat to Commit a Crime charge because there was no probable
cause to believe that a crime had occurred.
203.
On or about October 7, 2013, the Lowell District Court reaffirmed its dismissal of
the Threat to Commit a Crime charge because there was no probable cause to believe that a crime
had occurred.
204.
COUNT VII
Malicious Prosecution
205.
206.
Defendants Chief Sheehan, Deputy Chief Voto, Lt. Stephens, Lt. Columbus, Sgt.
Jop, Sgt. Warren, Ofc. McMahon, Ofc. Hanley, and Does ## 1 through 4 took part in instituting
criminal process against Mrs. OConnell.
207.
This criminal process was instituted with malice, in retaliation for Mrs. OConnell
verbally objecting to Sgt. Jops wrongful conduct at the scene of the incident when he was
33
interrogating her and her subsequent statements to Sgt. Jop and other officers that she was going to
sue Sgt. Jop for wrongfully arresting her.
208.
Defendants lacked probable cause for the arrest and the criminal complaint which
was issued against Mrs. OConnell.

209.
The criminal charges were disposed of favorably to Mrs. OConnell when all
charges were dismissed.

210.
COUNT VIII
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
211.
212.
By their course of conduct described herein, Defendants Chief Sheehan, Deputy
Chief Voto, Lt. Stephens, Lt. Columbus, Sgt. Jop, Sgt. Warren, Ofc. McMahon, Ofc. Hanley, and
Does ## 1 through 4 inflicted severe emotional distress on Mrs. OConnell.
213.
The Defendants course of conduct described herein and their intentional violation
of Mrs. OConnells statutory and Constitutional rights was extreme and outrageous.
214.
The Defendants course of conduct described herein and their intentional violation
of Mrs. OConnells statutory and Constitutional rights resulted in, without limitation, pain and
suffering, severe mental anguish, emotional distress, shock, fright, infliction of physical trauma
and illness, anxiety, sleeplessness, gastrointestinal problems, humiliation, indignities and
embarrassment, degradation, injury to reputation and loss of enjoyment of activities with family
and others.
34
215.

WHEREFORE, Mrs. OConnell requests that this Honorable Court:
1. Enter judgment in Mrs. OConnells favor on all counts and award damages in an
amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
2. Award Mrs. OConnell all compensatory damages, consequential damages, actual
damages, punitive damages, statutory damages, special damages, unspecified
damages, emotional distress damages, and any such other damages as the court may
deem just and proper;
3. Award Mrs. OConnell the costs of this action, including reasonable attorney's fees;
and
4. Award such other and further relief as this Court may deem necessary and
appropriate.
JURY DEMAND
A jury trial is hereby demanded.
Respectfully submitted,
ALICE E. OCONNELL
By her attorney,
/s/ Dianne M. OBrien
Dianne M. OBrien, Esq.
BBO No. 559658
800 Turnpike Street, Suite 300
North Andover, MA 01845
(978) 794-5515
Email: info@attorneyobrien.com
Dated: December 6, 2015
35
Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1-1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1-2 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 1

85-Year-Old Tewksbury Woman Accuses Town, Police of Civil Rights Violations

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

85-Year-Old Tewksbury Woman Accuses Town, Police of Civil Rights Violations

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 35

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-14027

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 2 of 35

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Venue in the District of Massachusetts is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 3 of 35

Defendant Town of Tewksbury is a municipal entity duly organized and chartered

Defendant Town of Tewksbury Police Department is a municipal government entity

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 4 of 35

Defendant Lieutenant Robert Stephens (Lt. Stevens), who is sued in his

Defendant Lieutenant Ryan Columbus (Lt. Columbus), who is sued in his

Defendant Officer Markus E. McMahon (Ofc. McMahon), who is sued in his

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 5 of 35

times a duly sworn police officer of the Tewksbury Police Department.

FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

Each of the foregoing paragraphs is incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

At all relevant times hereto, Defendant Timothy Sheehan, as Chief of Police,

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 6 of 35

incidents described herein.

unlawfully arrested and 83 years old at other times relevant hereto.

In accordance with established policies and procedures of the Tewksbury Police

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 7 of 35

scratch on his wrist.

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 8 of 35

Throughout the interrogation by Sgt. Jop, Mrs. OConnell consistently and

told Mrs. OConnell that she was being awfully pushy.

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 9 of 35

in a manner which was extremely tight.

OConnell in the car.

caused numbness to her arms and wrists, pain and redness.

Without containing any information regarding Sgt. Jops argumentative and

Without containing any information regarding Sgt. Jops argumentative and

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 10 of 35

probable cause for Mrs. OConnells arrest.

Alzheimers, approximately five years prior to the time of this incident.

Thomas was not requesting that Mrs. OConnell be arrested.

instead motivated by Mrs. OConnell verbal objections to his wrongful behavior.

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 11 of 35

means of a video/audio recorder.

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 12 of 35

handcuffs nearly broke it.

Lt. Stephens conducted the booking of Mrs. OConnell.

Stephens advised the subject of her rights.

OConnell of her rights on 5/24/2013 at 1226.

a call on 5/24/2013 at 1226.

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 13 of 35

The Supplemental Narrative indicates that it was completed on 5/28/2013 which

When composing the Supplemental Narrative, Lt. Stephens selectively included

agitated state when she arrived at Tewksbury Headquarters.

or Mrs. OConnells making fun of any officers.

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 14 of 35

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 15 of 35

could possibly be construed as Mrs. OConnell being "uncooperative and argumentative.

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 16 of 35

at the Tewksbury police station.

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 17 of 35

Mrs. OConnell did not request or consent to this psychiatric evaluation.

While at Lowell General Hospital, Mrs. OConnell remained handcuffed, much of

day for stabbing her husband.

If the medical personnel conducting Mrs. OConnells psychiatric examination had

Case 1:15-cv-14027-IT Document 1 Filed 12/07/15 Page 18 of 35

Mrs. OConnell did not stab her husband.